Jump to content

2013 rules, the Director's Cut


Al F.

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I want to take some time to let you know my personal thoughts on what has changed for 2013, and what hasnt. I'll try to not put words in the moulths of the other directors (they can do so themselves much more eloquently) and focus on these things from my perspective.

 

First, a big public thanks to all of you that submitted an RCR, argued for/against an RCR, communicated with your regional director, and otherwise participated in this effort. A specific thanks to each of our regional directors as well for their giant investment into this.

 

The big change for 2013 is of course to the S197. This may not impact you directly, since there are only three of them running with us currently, but it will sooner or later. It is no secret that NASA is mulling establishing effectively an S197 spec class under the AI banner, and that may or may not happen. Even if it does, there is no reason S197s would have to be banned from CMC, so they're here to stay. They cant, however, stay on 2012's 235mm tires, hence the big swing at their power, track, and weight in exchange for putting them back on 275s. Unfortunately we dont have hard evidence of what results this will net. We have statistical analysis of drivers best lap changing from old CMC1 to old CMC2 rules pointing to this being in the right ball park but that is of course filled with variables that cant be neutralized. We'll have to keep a close eye on this of course.

 

The next big change is a move to favor Fox/SN95 cars over GM cars. This change is where the regional directors were most split, and the change is greater than almost all were willing to go with, but in the end I felt that going a bit too far would be better than continuing to chase the target. The decision to essentially "slow down" the GM cars instead of "speeding up" the Fords comes from the realization that the Fords are at the practical limit in terms of weight and track without having to invest a lot, while from the GM camp we constantly hear how hard it is to get to minimum weight. The GMs then lost some track width, and gained some weight.

 

Look carefully at the power numbers in the tables. Back when we made CMC2 we essentially made the weight/power numbers even across the table, as opposed to the long standing slightly worsening weight/power numbers CMC had originally. We've edited these numbers slightly to make the sweet spot 260-263 and not entice people to really push the edge by dynoing at 265.

 

The new 7.5.9 is what I'll call the new Jeremy Gunter rule. Look, I realize that one could sit around and try to figure out ways to decrease drag or increase front downforce while still maintaining this stock appearance and adhering to the strictest interpretation of the rules. To what effect I dont know, but this isnt the place for that kind of experimentation and I dont want the book to have seven pages worth of descriptions and pictures about what you can and cannot do with radiator ducting. We're here to race with even odds, lets not let this kind of thing get out of control, ok?

 

The separators/breathers issue was from the tech bulletin and I think pretty self explanatory after all of the threads we had. Simply put; add your vents as proper, dont try to get funky with jet pumps or disguised turbos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Al F.

    8

  • Glenn

    7

  • mitchntx1548534714

    6

  • Adam Ginsberg

    5

  • Members

There is a new addition allowing mechanical throttle stops on carbureted cars instead of a restrictor plate. This was brought up by (of course) our carb guys and seems like a good idea. Its restricted to carbs because they dont have a computer making timing/fuel decisions based on wether or not you are at wide open throttle.

 

We've had multiple discussions over time regarding header wraps and exhaust coatings. Personally, I dont see a real strong case for the new allowance for coating manifolds, but I also dont see a strong case for not allowing it given some cars can use aftermarket headers (for other reasons) and they are therefore allowed to choose headers that are coated. I think this is a reasonable allowance therefore.

 

The transmission and rear gear allowance has been substantially tightened up. Frankly, this is a change that some of us have been lobying for for years. We never succeeded in the past due to the practical reality that policing this is kind of a PITA...well, PITA or not it has to happen. Real close ratio boxes do give real performance advantages and the cost is very high so there is no reason to have it in CMC. Stock gears other than 5th or 6th and a reasonable rear gear to keep folks from leveraging their 6speed over those with only 5.

 

Diff covers...wow was there some discussion about this! To me its fairly simple; use the stock one. If you think you're going to save a ton of time by being able to unscrew a drain plug, fine, install one on your stock steel cover. Thats it. Easy to enforce, no unintended side effects.

 

The rear control arm rule was modified to specify an exact length and tolerance instead of just stating "stock". It turns out "stock" is a lot more grey than black, so this should serve all of us better.

 

Section 7.34 changed quite a bit. Part of it comes from the tech bulletin, and part of it comes from an RCR requesting allowance of frame strengthening to help some of our old cars. We discussed this back and forth and felt that this is a good compromise between the status quo and full blown cages attached to bodies, stich welding, etc. This should help all of us keep our cars solid, but we'll have to see if its enough.

 

Changes to "race starter" and "race finisher" in section 8 are from an RCR and intended to clarify things. Remember, CMC is different here in that the CCR (ie most NASA classes) require you to finish half the number of laps that the winner did in order to score points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Al and to the other directors for the time you've spent on the rule discussions for 2013.

 

I was curious as to how much the Traqmate data that had been gathered from Texas and Rocky Mountain regions of late impact or not impact any of the decisions regarding the changes in the various platforms. Was there anything that stood out in the data? We had all but the S197 platform to get data from and I would think something good came from it?

 

Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ok...so those are some of my thoughts on what did change. That leaves me with what didnt change. Below is a list of the RCRs that were denied.

 

RCR to allow torque arms on mustangs: this is a bridge too far, at least at this point. After much debate and looking at real data from admittedly too few sources (we make do with what we have...which is not a lot of "nationally competitive" fox/sn95 cars) I am convinced the fox/sn95 is so damn close...but just shy. No torque arms, but more weight and less track for the GMs.

 

RCR to allow any aftermarket cams on 302s: Sure, this could save a few bucks on original purchase, but it opens up the pandoras box of searching for the optimum torque curve and that is ultimately much more expensive and much more difficult to deal with. One cam means a known curve and known results for a known amount of money.

 

RCR to allow tubular steel bumper beam replacements: not surprisingly, unanimously rejected. That is well into AI territory and simply not necessary.

 

RCR to allow threaded spring adjusters for all cars: What can I say that the thirty pages of the thread havent?

 

RCR to allow Fords running a PM3L to remove the dead link: I thought this would be a slam dunk, and was essentially unanimously pushed back. Ok...well, I'll add one to my column of things I dont personally agree with! lol

 

RCR to specify wheel spacers are included in "wheel" for min weight purposes: doing so creates a very difficult enforcement situation and thats the real business case for keeping it as is. If you want your spacer to count as part of the wheel, permanently attach it to the wheel.

 

RCR to add term limits to directors: This is not something for CMC to manage. CMC Directors are NASA officials, and as such NASA gets the choice of deciding how to manage their business. We can influence (and we do) etc. but we are not painting NASA into a corner.

 

RCR to allow use of 5.3L LS motors in GM cars: this one is denied for now. Its an interesting concept, but its far too early to say yes/no. Bob Denton is experimenting, and once we have real facts we'll see where we are.

 

Ok...I think thats it. If I've left anything out, let me know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the deal with making 4 speed transmissions illegal?

 

I understand outlawing the close ratios even though it leaves me holding the bag for a grand, but what's fundamentally superior about a 4 speed other then it's stronger then the glass T5s and case-tastrophy TKOs?

 

PS- my close ratio T10 cost less then a T56. A normal ratio is even cheaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...so those are some of my thoughts on what did change. That leaves me with what didnt change. Below is a list of the RCRs that were denied.

 

 

RCR to allow use of 5.3L LS motors in GM cars: this one is denied for now. Its an interesting concept, but its far too early to say yes/no. Bob Denton is experimenting, and once we have real facts we'll see where we are.

 

Ok...I think thats it. If I've left anything out, let me know!

 

Al, Can you and NASA make this (fact gathering) a priority? LS1 prices are going up faster & faster. And LT-1's aren't growing on tree's either..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

TJ, happy to add that four speed back in. Honestly, I ran out of time. You might have the sole 4spd in CMC! Lets chat off line and look at the ratios. Notice not every T56 ever made is allowed.

 

Raybob...agree, sooner is better!

 

Mike...the focus of the argument was GM Vs Fox/SN95, and the drivers I chose were Mosty, Proctor, and Allford because they were on the same track the same day. Nothing "jumps out", the differences are not big. If they were it'd be easy! The info that most impressed me is that Mosty consistently has a slightly slower best lap and theoretical best lap Vs the GMs and that the difference between his best lap and TBL is less than that of the GMs. My conclusion therefore is Mosty's fox is consistently closer to the best he can do and the best he can do is not as good as the best the GMs can do. (remember, we're talking tenths here, not seconds!) If best laps were sometimes faster and sometimes slower I'd call it a day, but they're not, theyre almost without fail just slightly slower. Acceleration on these guys is as even as one could hope for. Braking is often in Mosty's Fox's favor, but not always, leading me to conclude that this is more due to the driver. Peak Gs in corners are pretty even other than on left hand corners at Nola (at ECR they were as even as one can expect given the choppiness of the data), dont know what to make of that.

 

All of that said, I'll reiterate (for clarity) that I was the one pushing hard for this change, and I didnt make a good enough case to have the rest of the directors agree unanimously (far from it!). Their concensus was do the weight change, leave the GM track width alone. They were, after all, doing what I've pushed them to do for years: decide based on hard irrefutable facts, not rumor, not speculation. Its hard to accept this with data from only three drivers on two tracks, so I understand and applaud them pushing back. In the end though, if Mosty got hit by a bus, the fox/sn95 drivers would have a much stronger case! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike...the focus of the argument was GM Vs Fox/SN95, and the drivers I chose were Mosty, Proctor, and Allford because they were on the same track the same day.

 

Al, I'm curious why you say the test was GM vs Fox/sn95? Wasn't the test 4th Gen vs Fox/sn95? Have the directors decided that the third gens are identical in peformance to the fourth gens? I know there was a lot of dicussion about wins, poles, etc. but it seemed like the GM's were generally fourth gens.

 

I think its great that we are trying to make all the cars even but let's make sure that we are talking about ALL the cars. Show us the data that shows that third gens are equal to fourth gens and I'll have less to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As Glenn said, the GMs have been considered equal for quite a while. There used to be a 50lb weight break for the 3rd gen, and that was removed circa 2009? A long time ago. So, yes, the players in question were all in 4th gens, but I do not consider capability of a 4th gen any different than a third gen.

 

Both cars have the exact same rear suspension, same track width and wheelbase. The only real difference is front suspension, with the 3rd gen having a strut. A strut front end is not necessarily a bad thing, just ask any decent BMW, Porsche, or S197 driver. The Fox/SN95 interpretation of a strut front end is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... while from the GM camp we constantly hear how hard it is to get to minimum weight.

Can't say I've heard any third gen driver ever say that. Besides that, I always get the puzzled look when I ask these 4th gen drivers who claim they've done EVERYTHING to reduce weight if they're running a 4 or 5 speed.

 

*edit*

As Glenn said, the GMs have been considered equal for quite a while. There used to be a 50lb weight break for the 3rd gen, and that was removed circa 2009? A long time ago. So, yes, the players in question were all in 4th gens, but I do not consider capability of a 4th gen any different than a third gen.

For all the talk about gathering data (not results) in order to make changes b/w the Fords/GM, has there been ANY data to prove the equality between the third gen and 4th gen? I also find it odd that the Fox/SN95 don't run the same weights, yet, like the 4th gen/third gen, they are nearly the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both cars have the exact same rear suspension, same track width and wheelbase. The only real difference is front suspension, with the 3rd gen having a strut.

 

I don't think the only diference is the strut. First, I never could get my car to the max track width last year. When I tried to even get close, my tires were rubbing on the fenders so bad I couldn't even turn the wheel in turns under braking. Plus, the 4th gens are two inches wider than the 3rd gens. The fourth gen has plastic doors and front fenders. The front suspension is clearly not the same between the two.

 

Granted there might be more similarities than differences, but that does not mean they are equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al, Can you and NASA make this (fact gathering) a priority? LS1 prices are going up faster & faster. And LT-1's aren't growing on tree's either..

 

Raybob - LS1's prices "aren't going up faster and faster". The pricing I've found has remained consistent over the past 2 or so years that I've been keeping track.

 

$3100, from Summit, available to ship today. Same price it's been for a very long time. I'll agree $3100 is a good chunk of change, but that dollar amount is comparable to having most ANY CMC engine rebuilt. Consider yourself lucky that you can buy a complete longblock crate engine, and drop it in the car without having to change anything. The Ford 5.0L Windsor/pushrod guys don't have it so lucky - we can buy a new crate engine, but it's a 340HP Boss engine that has AL heads (not CMC legal, obviously) that have to be removed, and a block that isn't CMC legal as it has 4-bolt mains (something the GM guys CAN have, as those engines came in eligible chassis from the factory). And, it costs $6600.

 

I'll agree LT1's are a bit harder to find, but the reality is....they are still available. A 10 second search (literally!!) on ebay netted nine used LT1 engines, all less than $2000. Most were under the $1000 mark. They ARE available.

 

LS1's aren't any more expensive to buy or rebuild than any other engine permitted in CMC. The prices for them isn't skyrocketing - period.

 

I'm not a fan of "they sky is falling, the sky is falling" type of mentality, and that's what it appears you're doing. There's no rush to figure out if the 5.3L will/won't work, as the facts are simple - LS1's and LT1's haven't disappeared, are still readily available (which is more than I can say for the guys running Ford 5.0L Windsor/pushrod engines) and aren't any more expensive to rebuild/replace than any other legal CMC engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, I know nothing about the LT1 or LS1 availability but I would consider the 5.0L the easiest and cheapest engine "to rebuild" in CMC.

I will say that the complete build can be quite expensive when you consider heads, cam, intake, MAF, T/B, RR's, etc but those items typically don't get damaged when blowing a motor.

 

For reference, after I blew my motor @ Hallett in 2011 I replaced it w/ a $200 short block, $500 rebuild kit, $550 in machine work / balancing / short block assembly, and a $350 balancer. That is a total cost of $1600. That is dirt cheap IMO.

 

Again, I have no clue what other motor rebuild costs are but the 5.0l to me seems like a piece of cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For reference, after I blew my motor @ Hallett in 2011 I replaced it w/ a $200 short block, $500 rebuild kit, $550 in machine work / balancing / short block assembly, and a $350 balancer. That is a total cost of $1600. That is dirt cheap IMO.

 

WOW! That is crazy dirt cheap. We ingested mysterious metal bits several years back and had our engine rebuilt to the tune of around $2500, if I'm remembering correctly. We had everything hot-tanked, magnafluxed, and rebuilt at a local machine shop that normally does well pump engines and big block tractor pull engines on the side for the owner's family and friends. They have some really meticulous guys working for them and they did all the work for us including replacing the crank, pistons and the machine work to clean up the cylinders and heads and balance the rotating assembly. Everything else was able to be reused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, I know nothing about the LT1 or LS1 availability but I would consider the 5.0L the easiest and cheapest engine "to rebuild" in CMC.

I will say that the complete build can be quite expensive when you consider heads, cam, intake, MAF, T/B, RR's, etc but those items typically don't get damaged when blowing a motor.

 

Well, consider yourself fortunate that you don't have the experience I've had with blowing an engine. And, one that wasn't in my car, but I was the lucky guy racing it at the time.

 

The factory HB failed 35 mintues into a 3 hour enduro. It destroyed the block, 6 of 8 rods, 6 of 8 pistons, crank, cam, distributor, water pump, timing cover, HB (obviously), timing chain, 8 of 16 valves and the oil pan. I'll grant this is an extreme example of having to "rebuild" an engine, but the cost to replace everything came to $4500, IIRC.

 

The quote I received to rebuild the motor in my car was in the $3000-$3500 ballpark, depending on what was found once opened up. That quote included going through the heads, as well as the block.

 

Remember - everything's more expensive in CA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, really?

The S197's probably do have some geometry advantages and they need some adjustments (not 235 tires) but do you all realize the new rules have them at 15.1 to 15.7 P/W? Where the Fox = 11.93, SN95 = 12.12 and LS1 = 12.6

This is like a class and a half change if it were PT or ST.

 

Can this please be readdressed? A 35hp drop & 200lbs add is going to remove these cars from the class. There are only a handfull running so do any of you care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as a point of referance;

In AI many of the GM guys quit because of a precieved advantage of the S197's (ABS, Transmisions, etc) even when the P/W was the same. Nasa saw fit to modify the P/W for the ABS by .5 (point five).

 

What CMC has done is modify the P/W by 3 (three). What should the S197 guys do? Does it look like CMC wants new cars in the class? I dont think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Undoubtedly the S197s got hosed.

 

On the subject of weight table...

 

2012:

SN95 260/310 = 3200 - 50 = 3150

 

2013:

SN95 260/310 = 3250 - 100 = 3150

 

Whole table went up by 50 lbs and adjustment went up 50 lbs. No real change for me. Was this just to help out the F-bodys meet min weight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as a point of referance;

In AI many of the GM guys quit because of a precieved advantage of the S197's (ABS, Transmisions, etc) even when the P/W was the same. Nasa saw fit to modify the P/W for the ABS by .5 (point five).

 

What CMC has done is modify the P/W by 3 (three). What should the S197 guys do? Does it look like CMC wants new cars in the class? I dont think so.

 

Realize everything we have done in the past did not slow this car down enough. Staying on the 235 was not an option. The goal was to overshoot for the sake of the other cars in the class. Overshoot to ensure that the S-197 was not the car to have 3 years running. We thought we had overshot once already and realized we still came up short.

The power can be added back as we see that it was too much that was taken away.

The reality is the car does not fit in the class and we are trying to force it to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Undoubtedly the S197s got hosed.

 

On the subject of weight table...

 

2012:

SN95 260/310 = 3200 - 50 = 3150

 

2013:

SN95 260/310 = 3250 - 100 = 3150

 

Whole table went up by 50 lbs and adjustment went up 50 lbs. No real change for me. Was this just to help out the F-bodys meet min weight?

 

All the GM's got 50lbs added. The goal was to help the Fox/SN-95. Instead of taking another 50 from them, we added to the other side. Since more times than not, the 4th gens are weight challenged, it was a good move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al, Can you and NASA make this (fact gathering) a priority? LS1 prices are going up faster & faster. And LT-1's aren't growing on tree's either..

 

Raybob - LS1's prices "aren't going up faster and faster". The pricing I've found has remained consistent over the past 2 or so years that I've been keeping track.

 

$3100, from Summit, available to ship today. Same price it's been for a very long time. I'll agree $3100 is a good chunk of change, but that dollar amount is comparable to having most ANY CMC engine rebuilt. Consider yourself lucky that you can buy a complete longblock crate engine, and drop it in the car without having to change anything. The Ford 5.0L Windsor/pushrod guys don't have it so lucky - we can buy a new crate engine, but it's a 340HP Boss engine that has AL heads (not CMC legal, obviously) that have to be removed, and a block that isn't CMC legal as it has 4-bolt mains (something the GM guys CAN have, as those engines came in eligible chassis from the factory). And, it costs $6600.

 

I'll agree LT1's are a bit harder to find, but the reality is....they are still available. A 10 second search (literally!!) on ebay netted nine used LT1 engines, all less than $2000. Most were under the $1000 mark. They ARE available.

 

LS1's aren't any more expensive to buy or rebuild than any other engine permitted in CMC. The prices for them isn't skyrocketing - period.

 

I'm not a fan of "they sky is falling, the sky is falling" type of mentality, and that's what it appears you're doing. There's no rush to figure out if the 5.3L will/won't work, as the facts are simple - LS1's and LT1's haven't disappeared, are still readily available (which is more than I can say for the guys running Ford 5.0L Windsor/pushrod engines) and aren't any more expensive to rebuild/replace than any other legal CMC engine.

I apologize Adam, The sky isn't really falling.

Is it Legal in CMC to use a 5.0 out of an Exploder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glen, how does the car not fit in the class? CMC made a recent major modification to its rules (CMC2) which is now the only option, so that the car would fit!

The term overshoot doesnt quite say enough. Last years attempt (235's) was very close. Season results would bear that out. The Championship race was a full course yellow deal that helped both of the S197's. We are at the point of fine tuning. Yes the 275 have to come back due to cost so how much is enough, up for debate. What is not is that no other class has as much of a disparity in P/W ratios.

 

Dont want to sound hostile please read with grain of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not taking it hostile by any means.

One thing to keep in mind is the adjustments. Power to weight is not the same for all cars in CMC. All cars have various adjustments. Fox/SN-95's are now 150lbs different from the GM's. We have the same power/tire, so it must be a lateral grip issue we are adjusting for.

The mechanical grip of the S-197 is so great, that w/ 275's, the power has to come down on the S-197 to get a equal lap time. I would rather add even more weight and up the power to 240.

AI is a class where any car can do any mod that any of the cars are allowed to do. Not the case in CMC. So there will be wide variances in the numbers for the platforms. I agree this instance it is considerable. I think it is too much. But something drastic has to be done.

I wanted to see the S-197 put on a 255 tire.

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...