CMC plans for the future ??

[ShadowBolt]

Where is this okay in CMC?

 

"afermarket torque arms"

 

 

JJ

[Glenn]

So yesterday I was walking through the padock and saw front coil overs, adjustable control arms, adjustable panhard bars, afermarket torque arms, stop tech brakes and 275 tires.

 

I had to remind myself that it was CMC cars and not AI cars.

 

I am also tired of hearing future CMC racers and time trialers calling it spec 4th gen.

 

Some points to clarify....

The cars w/ coilovers have them from the factory, nothing given here that they didn't have stock.

Adjustable control arms - By rule the adjustable part must be defeted once the arm is set to the OEM length. This can be done w/ epoxy or welding. Mine are welded. These are also allowed in the rear only and only the lowers, not the uppers.

Adjustable PHB's, these are needed to recenter the axle to prevent tire rub. As the car is lowered, the axle will shift offcenter. Seems this is a needed item.

Aftermarket Torque Arms - Surely you filed a Protest form... or at the very least pointed out that these are not legal in CMC, right?[/img]

[K Shaw]

Did not have the race car there (needs a trans) and I am no longer the Tech guy so I kept my mouth shut.

 

Some really good racing this weekend and I had a great seat and view while playing course official.

 

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with what I saw and the current rules just noticed how far the cars have come since 2007 when I started racing.

[Smike]

I agree with James. We don't need a faster car or tire. The tire we run now is hard enough on the chassis. What about a street tire? If we could get a street tire that did not fall off and would run a full season it would open up CMC to some of those that can't or won't pay the price for tires and brakes. Also the street tire would let the cars last a lot longer I would think. Going from three sets of race Toyo's per year to one set of streets would save over two grand a year!

 

 

JJ

 

Going to argue this from a tire engineer standpoint, a full street tire will not work in CMC or any W2W series. Cars are too heavy, generate too much heat, and street tires have heavier rubber gauges (tread, sidewall, bead area) than race or semi-race (RA1) tires. More rubber in the tire, more heat sink, more risk to failures. Street compounds will fall off sharply and wear increase sharply as well.

 

I have never been impressed with the RA1. Its more of a race tire carcass with so-so compound. From running just about all other race tires, its slower and less responsive than many full slicks. It is also cheaper and generally easy to get. Everything has a trade off.

 

Bottom line is we have options to run PT with whatever tire we want.

[ShadowBolt]

I agree with James. We don't need a faster car or tire. The tire we run now is hard enough on the chassis. What about a street tire? If we could get a street tire that did not fall off and would run a full season it would open up CMC to some of those that can't or won't pay the price for tires and brakes. Also the street tire would let the cars last a lot longer I would think. Going from three sets of race Toyo's per year to one set of streets would save over two grand a year!

 

 

JJ

 

Going to argue this from a tire engineer standpoint, a full street tire will not work in CMC or any W2W series. Cars are too heavy, generate too much heat, and street tires have heavier rubber gauges (tread, sidewall, bead area) than race or semi-race (RA1) tires. More rubber in the tire, more heat sink, more risk to failures. Street compounds will fall off sharply and wear increase sharply as well.

 

I have never been impressed with the RA1. Its more of a race tire carcass with so-so compound. From running just about all other race tires, its slower and less responsive than many full slicks. It is also cheaper and generally easy to get. Everything has a trade off.

 

Bottom line is we have options to run PT with whatever tire we want.

 

Obviously if we ran a street tire it would have to be safe, not fall off or wear out as fast as the R1. Your the expert. I know nothing about tires except they are the largest part of my racing budget. If we could lower the tire cost for a season I really do think we could get more racers. Sounds like you are saying there is nothing out there to do what I would want them to do? Several of us in Texas are seeing our older cars tearing up from the loads we are putting on them with the RA1. We would like to see us running on less tire, not more like the RR is supposed to be.

 

 

JJ

[supermac]

Kyle I have no idea which cars you were looking at and I know for a fact that not one of the CMC cars on the track had an aftermarket torque arm on it.

Cody

[Al F.]

SI has a minimum weight to power ratio for both torque and hp, a minimum weight, and the same dyno requirements CMC and AI have. The numbers are just a tad lower than what one would expect the motor to make with open exhaust, the FR tune, and a cold air kit.

 

If it werent for Ford, NASA wouldnt have put SI out there. Ford is putting out a lot of cash to attract drivers and without it NASA didnt feel it'd take off. That doesnt mean others cant come play. Both Ford and NASA would love to have GM or Dodge step up and put a package together.

 

I'm not a fan of the RR. I've been telling NASA my opinion about tires since the 888s were a rumor: cost/unit of track time that the tire hasnt dropped grip trumps any other measureable criteria for spec classes. If you want quick response and uber fast lap times you're not going to choose a spec class anyway. Thats just my opinion.

[Houstonnw]

 

Going to argue this from a tire engineer standpoint, a full street tire will not work in CMC or any W2W series. Cars are too heavy, generate too much heat, and street tires have heavier rubber gauges (tread, sidewall, bead area) than race or semi-race (RA1) tires. More rubber in the tire, more heat sink, more risk to failures. Street compounds will fall off sharply and wear increase sharply as well.

 

Are you a tire engineer? What is your technical backround? Not a flame, I'm curious how you can make this statement.

 

One reason that I joined CMC was because the previous RA1s were fast, if not faster, down to the cords. The Spec Miata guys have complained about the wear from the re-released RA1s and now there is talk about a faster RR.

 

Why? Why do we need a 'faster' tire in a spec tire series with a bunch of nose-heavy V8 cars?

[Smike]

 

Going to argue this from a tire engineer standpoint, a full street tire will not work in CMC or any W2W series. Cars are too heavy, generate too much heat, and street tires have heavier rubber gauges (tread, sidewall, bead area) than race or semi-race (RA1) tires. More rubber in the tire, more heat sink, more risk to failures. Street compounds will fall off sharply and wear increase sharply as well.

 

Are you a tire engineer? What is your technical backround? Not a flame, I'm curious how you can make this statement.

 

One reason that I joined CMC was because the previous RA1s were fast, if not faster, down to the cords. The Spec Miata guys have complained about the wear from the re-released RA1s and now there is talk about a faster RR.

 

Why? Why do we need a 'faster' tire in a spec tire series with a bunch of nose-heavy V8 cars?

 

Yes, I am a tire engineer (now manager) and work for a large tire company. And I have designed/industrialized tires that are on the road right now. That's how I can make that statement.

 

RA1s run to corded. More so than Hoosiers. Once cycled they have a pretty hard drop off in performance. Not that they cannot run to the cords either; but their lap times will be slower.

[cozog1548534733]

...there comes a point where the amount of work it takes to keep the car running and the amount of time needed to find the parts causes the allure of CMC to wain, especially when the directors are steadfast against changes that would help with this problem.

 

At some point, the cost savings of running CMC will be eliminated by the cost of keeping these cars running. Between the extra time needed to repair these cars and the difficulty of finding parts, it will ultimately become more expensive than buying a more expensive mustang as it likely cost the same with less work to keep the car running.

 

Smartest statement ever made about the true cost of CMC racing and it's affect on current and future racers. Bravo Robert.

[D Algozine]

If it werent for Ford, NASA wouldnt have put SI out there. Ford is putting out a lot of cash to attract drivers and without it NASA didnt feel it'd take off. That doesnt mean others cant come play. Both Ford and NASA would love to have GM or Dodge step up and put a package together.

 

A couple quick points:

Why couldn't NASA launch SI without Ford? Most of the frame work is a copy of the Mustang challenge cars. I know they put up contingency money, but that works exactly the same as TOYO. Consumers buy their product and Ford provides contingency, which is factored into their cost. In return, they sell more product, and get some great marketing opportunities, which should lead to more sales of their product. Great system, that has proven to work, but other spec series have made it work without Manufacturer sponsorship. Don't most/all other NASA spec series base the components on "stock" parts vs Ford Racing catalog parts?

NASA has already been pushing the new Mustang agenda, going all the way back to 06 in AI, then the edict to include S197 in CMC, and now SI.

I don't see how this model of SI leaves an opportunity for GM or Dodge. Of course I don't pretend to know all the behind the scenes dealings. So maybe it will happen.

 

However, we are back once again to my original question, what's the future hold for CMC? The statement that, CMC is not interested in modern, well engineered chassis entering the class needs to be amended. The S197 is here now.

Is it going to be the only new chassis allowed? If so, why? Why not others?

Will the other/older cars get to improve their chassis structure to match the newer cars? Will they get to match the greatly improved suspension geometry? HP and weight help, but they don not make the cars equal.

Which leads us back to Roberts statements,

wastntim wrote:

...there comes a point where the amount of work it takes to keep the car running and the amount of time needed to find the parts causes the allure of CMC to wain, especially when the directors are steadfast against changes that would help with this problem.

 

At some point, the cost savings of running CMC will be eliminated by the cost of keeping these cars running. Between the extra time needed to repair these cars and the difficulty of finding parts, it will ultimately become more expensive than buying a more expensive mustang as it likely cost the same with less work to keep the car running.

 

Has CMC ever considered putting together a well thought out survey? Emailing, not Forum. Asking current and prospective CMC'ers:

How long have they been racing? How long in CMC?

What attracted you to the series?

What do like best? least?

Changes you would like to see? would like NOT to see?

Specific component comments, in or out?

Newer cars in or out? why or why not?

ETC.....

Although there are differences among the classes, there is also a certain level of competition among race classes to attract new drivers, and keep the existing. Can be a tough balance, but it cant hurt to ask questions.

[wastntim]

Has CMC ever considered putting together a well thought out survey?

 

The only reason to put out a survey is if at least a majority of the directors are willing to listen to what the masses want. If they are going to ignore the results of the survey and simply decide on change on what they think CMC should be, then a survey is a pointless excercise.

 

As Bob Denton originally stated, there should be some turnover in the Dircectors from time to time just to keep new ideas coming in. If CMC can't change with the times and adapt to what the racers want, it will die.

[wastntim]

...there comes a point where the amount of work it takes to keep the car running and the amount of time needed to find the parts causes the allure of CMC to wain, especially when the directors are steadfast against changes that would help with this problem.

 

At some point, the cost savings of running CMC will be eliminated by the cost of keeping these cars running. Between the extra time needed to repair these cars and the difficulty of finding parts, it will ultimately become more expensive than buying a more expensive mustang as it likely cost the same with less work to keep the car running.

 

Smartest statement ever made about the true cost of CMC racing and it's affect on current and future racers. Bravo Robert.

 

Thanks Todd. The sad part is that there is nothing particularly "smart" about the statement. It's simply common sense. The problem is that common sense seems to be more elusive in today's society than it was in the past.

[Steve91T]

I know I say this all the time, but I don't expect everyone to remember who I am.

 

I'm 31 and I'm building my first CMC car. I've been building the car for over a year now, and have a little ways to go. I've been taking my time due to funds and time. I'm hoping by the end of the summer to be out there racing, and I think it's possible.

 

That being said, here are my thoughts.

 

CMC should become CMCC. Camaro Mustang Charger Challenge. Newer cars have more power, but are heavy. Older cars, less power and lighter. We come up with a compromise. Who cares if they have independent rear suspensions. Limit their upgrades. I'd be willing to be a 5th gen on stock suspension would have less grip than a 4th gen with our current suspension upgrades.

 

To help with the cost, the 4th gens move to the LQ4 or LQ9 engine. 6.0 iron block truck engine. Dirt cheap, tons available, and make about 350 rwhp stock with just a tune, intake and exhaust. I know LS6 heads and cam will give you over 400 rwhp. A direct bolt in for LS 4th gens. LT 4th gens will need a LS cross member and some wiring help.

 

So, what about the mustang and 3rg gen guys? I know it's more expensive to make power, but it's possible. So it costs a little more, but you won't be spending nearly as much as a new Camaro or Mustang.

 

CMCC would be a bad ass racing class. The guys with money would have new cars and honestly just rip out the interior and weld in a cage and go race. The older cars will need more work, but will cost less.

 

It'd be a fun class to watch, and even more fun to race.

 

When CMC first started, 4th gen Camaro's had 275 hp. Now soccer moms in minivans have over 300 hp.

 

LT1's out of 4th gens are tough to find. Exhaust manifolds are nearly impossible. When I did find a pair, they needed a lot of work because of the shape they were in. I could have had a set of headers for what I spent on these stupid things. I would much rather find a truck engine with 100,000 miles on it for $800 and go racing.

 

CMC needs to change with the times.

[ls168camaro]

From my perspective, and unless/until NASA HQ tells me otherwise, CMC will stick to what it is and only change rules to enable hardware that results in a lower total cost of ownership or substitutes for no longer manufactured parts.

 

In some circles, "vintage" = old and bad, but not to me. Sure, there are no new cars being made that are CMC elligible. So? The same is true for all of NASA's biggest classes; SM, SE30, 944...some of those classes havent had a new car in production for a couple of decades so CMC is actually in good shape as far as available hardware. All of these classes are therefore "vintage", yet new cars are built to go racing every day.

 

The gap between current production muscle cars and current CMC cars is huge and I have zero desire to do anything to the current cars to try to bridge that gap.

 

This just seemed worth reposting as it is all that really needed to be said about the future of CMC and I'm growing tired of the needless pot stirring going on. Makes me curious if the Miata guys have the same issues with people worried about the future of their class and the new MX-5's. I"m guessing they don't since there seemed to be about 40 Spec Miata's racing in Texas last weekend.

The future looks good for CMC with a ruleset that doesn't have any major changes headed its way. CMC in Texas is doing well and continuing to pickup plenty of new guys. Hallett should be a HUGE turnout! Remember- the rules in any class are never going to make everyone happy-not possible.

[D Algozine]

From my perspective, and unless/until NASA HQ tells me otherwise, CMC will stick to what it is and only change rules to enable hardware that results in a lower total cost of ownership or substitutes for no longer manufactured parts.

 

In some circles, "vintage" = old and bad, but not to me. Sure, there are no new cars being made that are CMC elligible. So? The same is true for all of NASA's biggest classes; SM, SE30, 944...some of those classes havent had a new car in production for a couple of decades so CMC is actually in good shape as far as available hardware. All of these classes are therefore "vintage", yet new cars are built to go racing every day.

 

The gap between current production muscle cars and current CMC cars is huge and I have zero desire to do anything to the current cars to try to bridge that gap.

 

This just seemed worth reposting as it is all that really needed to be said about the future of CMC and I'm growing tired of the needless pot stirring going on. Makes me curious if the Miata guys have the same issues with people worried about the future of their class and the new MX-5's. I"m guessing they don't since there seemed to be about 40 Spec Miata's racing in Texas last weekend.

The future looks good for CMC with a ruleset that doesn't have any major changes headed its way. CMC in Texas is doing well and continuing to pickup plenty of new guys. Hallett should be a HUGE turnout! Remember- the rules in any class are never going to make everyone happy-not possible.

 

The S197 is a very capable modern muscle car, and it is CMC legal. That cat (horse) is already out of the bag. It is by far the best suspension flatform of the three new pony cars. Raising the question about including other new cars seems like a very fair question, and even logical to think that they could be included.

Not to mention that with the inclusion of the S197, there is a significant disparity among the old cars chassis/ suspension and the new Mustang.

HP and weight is a good equalizer when cars are somewhat close, but what a huge difference there is. Lap times is one of easiest ways to try and level platforms, but if your chassis/suspension is superior, that car will have a huge advantage in racing......being off line...being able to pass.......hold off a pass........under heavy braking...etc

[Glenn]

I just don't understand why you guys are not puching for a NEW class to put all the NEW cars into? What is the draw to have the old cars run w/ the new cars?

 

Create a new class based around the S-197, 5th gen Camaro, CTS-V, G8, GTO, and whatever Dodge has to offer. Extend the legal platforms to include the older cars so those that want to move up can (or come down from AI). But the last thing I want to see is anyone forced to upgrade to the level of an S-197, 5th gen, or whatever. Just the change to 260hp, 13" 4 piston brakes and 17" wheels just about killed CMC. The class stalled bigtime durring this transition. Anymore change to CMC and it will have lost what little CMC it still retains.

 

Remember, CMC is about low cost entry level racing. There is no lower cost class to run a Pony car in. I think it is just plain crazy to increase the cost to stay and/or the cost to get into CMC.

 

Of all this talk I hear about adding in newer cars, I hear about 4X as much about taking 17's and 13" brakes away from CMC (wings too).

[Steve91T]

I just don't think it would add that much cost to the current CMC cars. A stock 5th gen isn't that fast on the track.

 

I do see your point though. A separate class for all those cars with optins for the current CMC cars to move up would be a good idea.

[Glenn]

I just don't think it would add that much cost to the current CMC cars. A stock 5th gen isn't that fast on the track.

 

I do see your point though. A separate class for all those cars with optins for the current CMC cars to move up would be a good idea.

 

The small change to 17's is all it took to cause me to go from racing 6-7 weekends a year to 3. The increased brake costs don't help. I got into this cause I could do it for less than 5K a year. I don't think that is possible now. If a small change is OK for you, fine, but don't assume it is for everyone else. It may be the difference in racing or watching.

[Steve91T]

You're right. I'm not racing yet, and I don't have a clue what it's really going to cost. (I'm being serious).

 

I guess I can't figure out why someone would rather have an E30 or Miata over a V8 muscle car.

 

Why isn't CMC bigger? It is cheap, and the cars are fast and sound great. There's something turning people off.

[Glenn]

You're right. I'm not racing yet, and I don't have a clue what it's really going to cost. (I'm being serious).

 

I guess I can't figure out why someone would rather have an E30 or Miata over a V8 muscle car.

 

Why isn't CMC bigger? It is cheap, and the cars are fast and sound great. There's something turning people off.

 

Car count. Some SE30 regions are huge. Same w/ SMiata. SM also has Mazda backing them. that helps alot. Look at SIron and the Ford suport. That class is booming.

The point is, the key to any class is car count. More cars brings more cars.

[D Algozine]

I just don't understand why you guys are not puching for a NEW class to put all the NEW cars into? What is the draw to have the old cars run w/ the new cars?

 

Create a new class based around the S-197, 5th gen Camaro, CTS-V, G8, GTO, and whatever Dodge has to offer. Extend the legal platforms to include the older cars so those that want to move up can (or come down from AI). But the last thing I want to see is anyone forced to upgrade to the level of an S-197, 5th gen, or whatever. Just the change to 260hp, 13" 4 piston brakes and 17" wheels just about killed CMC. The class stalled bigtime durring this transition. Anymore change to CMC and it will have lost what little CMC it still retains.

 

Remember, CMC is about low cost entry level racing. There is no lower cost class to run a Pony car in. I think it is just plain crazy to increase the cost to stay and/or the cost to get into CMC.

 

Of all this talk I hear about adding in newer cars, I hear about 4X as much about taking 17's and 13" brakes away from CMC (wings too).

 

Glenn,

That may be the best plan. All I'm asking is to start thinking about how and when to make this work. Because new cars are already here (S197), and it's not equal now. In my opinion, there are many item to get resolved, but I'm not sure these topics are even being considered.

Besides, pretty sure SI is highly regarded by HQ, and it "appears" to be a new Mustang class, so either add another separate Modern car class, which seems unsustainable, ..... or modify SI, which seems unlikely.

Lots of questions.

[Tom P]

Post Deleted.

[Steve91T]

I know it's come up before, but the truck engines need to be considered. Even the 5.3 would be great for our current CMC hp levels.

 

 

Personally, I'm glad people are talking about the future of CMC. That means that people do care.

 

 

Glenn, you said the E30 and Miata classes are so popular because of the large car count, what can we do to increase CMC's car count?

[Glenn]

Post Deleted.

Why? It was a good post.