Den341548534727 Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 TIME is something that often gets overlooked in these healthy debates regarding rules. There is only 24 hours in a day and nothing is going to change that. But you can buy TIME getting a simple kit to fix a problem like this rather than going to a salvage yard and cutting this section out or buying a new tub. It needs to be considered how many racers and potential racers are we tuning off because of the way some of the rules are interpreted or enforced. The mission of CMC is to provide membership a low cost way to race V8 pony cars. Sometimes time away from family or going into work with only 4 hours sleep because you where trying to fix the car should be considered in "Cost". Common sense should prevail especially considering some of the platforms are nearing 30 to 35 years old. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nape1548534725 Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 Well put and I definitely agree, Bob. That's the biggest draw to CMC for is not having to rebuild the car after every weekend like the AI car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 Keep in mind that the current repair kit was not legal just a few short years ago. Rules change and is often the result of info provided by the racer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 Keep in mind that the current repair kit was not legal just a few short years ago. Rules change and is often the result of info provided by the racer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suck fumes1548534743 Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Bob nailed it on the head. Plus the reinforcement kit allowed now it useless and is just for looks more or less. The whole thing needs to be replaced with well structured material. And this whole debate over "it costs 10% more up front" etc, well think about how much it costs over a year to constantly bandaid the problem only to have it get worse each time. Prob ends up being 20-30% more. Lot easier and makes a lot more sense to fix it RIGHT the first time. And there is no reason why everyone should feel like they have to have this right away. If your boxes are in good shape then leave them alone until you have problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koserv Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 So, why don't we draft an RCR right here on the forum so its done to all the directors satisfaction, with their input, and get it signed off as a mid-season rules update. We managed to get $2,000plus brake packages and carbon fibre wings in the rules, so you'd think we could hammer out an acceptable RCR for a simple, logical fix to keep one of the approved chassis viable. I'm not a Ford guy, but I'll start... Allow early model Fords to replace or repair torque arm attach points using kit #( ) from (manufacturer here). OEM locations must be maintained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 So, why don't we draft an RCR right here on the forum so its done to all the directors satisfaction, with their input, and get it signed off as a mid-season rules update. We managed to get $2,000plus brake packages and carbon fibre wings in the rules, so you'd think we could hammer out an acceptable RCR for a simple, logical fix to keep one of the approved chassis viable. I'm not a Ford guy, but I'll start... Allow early model Fords to replace or repair torque arm attach points using kit #( ) from (manufacturer here). OEM locations must be maintained. Try again, Fox and SN-95's don't have torque arms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suck fumes1548534743 Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Allow early model Fords to replace or repair torque BOX attach points using kit #( ) from (manufacturer here). OEM locations must be maintained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 We are just talking, so .........no worries ! So we'll all spend more money and time and we can pretend that some how it's less expensive While I agree tube chassis are cheeper in the long run, the buy in is higher. What time frame equals "the long run"? Keep in mind that over the last 2-3 years the rules have chanded considerably for Fords and GMs so that platform specific known weak areas can be addressed post and pre failure. That is a massive change compaired to what was allowed in the past (2005?). The rules are evolving, but it will never be an overnight change. And..... The proposed part that is the original subject of this thread was not the part subitted in the original RCR. We approved what was submitted by the Ford guys. Turns out that part is not adequate. Submit the info you have to the Directors and see if they agree with you. There is not enough info in this thread to decide at this point. Cost of the part, complexity of the install, cost to install if you have to pay someone all need to be considered. OEM mounting points, and ease of verification of OEM mounting points. Lots to think about from a rules enforcement POV. Will this solve the problem or move the failure point? These are drag raceparts yes? Lots less left/right chassis twist in drag racing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koserv Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 So, why don't we draft an RCR right here on the forum so its done to all the directors satisfaction, with their input, and get it signed off as a mid-season rules update. We managed to get $2,000plus brake packages and carbon fibre wings in the rules, so you'd think we could hammer out an acceptable RCR for a simple, logical fix to keep one of the approved chassis viable. I'm not a Ford guy, but I'll start... Allow early model Fords to replace or repair torque arm attach points using kit #( ) from (manufacturer here). OEM locations must be maintained. Try again, Fox and SN-95's don't have torque arms. As I said, not a Ford guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 So, why don't we draft an RCR right here on the forum so its done to all the directors satisfaction, with their input, and get it signed off as a mid-season rules update. We managed to get $2,000plus brake packages and carbon fibre wings in the rules, so you'd think we could hammer out an acceptable RCR for a simple, logical fix to keep one of the approved chassis viable. I'm not a Ford guy, but I'll start... Allow early model Fords to replace or repair torque arm attach points using kit #( ) from (manufacturer here). OEM locations must be maintained. Try again, Fox and SN-95's don't have torque arms. As I said, not a Ford guy Lets let the Ford guys take point on this. Its there problem. Let them work the solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHISSTC Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Lets let the Ford guys take point on this. Its there problem. Let them work the solution. I'll take that in a positive manner, but it isn't coming across as being very positive or helpful. I appreciate it whenever anyone in CMC makes an effort to help someone else out. Thinking out loud... What would it take to seal the deal on making this change? Ideally, I would think it would be someone actually putting them on a car and trying them out, or knowing someone who has done it already. Drag racing isn't going to stress the chassis in the same way as road racing. Without it being legal, I don't see anyone going to the time/expense of trying it. Is that a nasty Catch 22, or are we going to grant someone rule immunity for a year to try it out? And what if we determine in the end this is not the direction we want to go? Is the person who was granted immunity for a year then screwed for having a legal chassis after that? It makes the rules shorter, easier to write, and easier to police, but I don't necessarily like specifying a specific manufacturer or part number because it excludes other manufacturers and discourages home-grown solutions, while implying this the THE hot part to have. Maybe we can collectively come up with a more generic wording instead of throwing up roadblocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koserv Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 And that is my point. Hash it out here as an actual RCR. Get it so it covers what you need. Have the PooBah's chime in, submit it, and move on. Just trying to see if we can streamline and shed some light on the process of actually getting an effective RCR submitted and approved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHISSTC Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 I do not have any information to add, but I'm willing to discuss and I appreciate the effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 Simpler approach. Pro-active vs reactive, include all legal platforms: Bracing and reinforcing of stock locations, or currently legal suspension pick up points is legal. No alterations to pick up point locations or sizes, no changes in geometry, bracing / reinforcing most be within 12" of original attachment point. (certainly could use some more details, but this is the basic idea) Add transmission mounts, for all models, as an option. Then personally, I would take it a step further, and allow additional bracing and reinforcing of the chassis, such as specific roll cage bracing. I've got plenty of simple ideas..... Other then the S197 these cars are very flimsy and weak. It would add to the lifetime of the chassis (less expense in the long run) and make it much safer.....but thats for another topic.....but its all related. Literally, a few hundred dollars and several hours and the chassis is much safer, and will last much longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted July 8, 2013 Share Posted July 8, 2013 I agree. Remember there are many directors. When you allow stuff like this it changes the balance of platforms and also creates a have and have not group. The have not group will have to upgrade as there will be performance penalty if you don't. Since CMC is not a builders class, it is very hard to allow this type of stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Den341548534727 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Let me say from the get go I am not a Ford guy. Just asking beacuse I dont know. Do the torque boxes tear / fail because of the poor mans 3 link or is it because the torque boxes are inherently weak or a combination of both? Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC#11 Posted July 9, 2013 Share Posted July 9, 2013 Let me say from the get go I am not a Ford guy. Just asking beacuse I dont know. Do the torque boxes tear / fail because of the poor mans 3 link or is it because the torque boxes are inherently weak or a combination of both? Bob They will tear mainly b/c of the weak design. The pm3l definitely doesn't help the situation though. My guess is my lower boxes started tearing initially where my passenger upper box (3rd link), didn't start tearing until running the pm3l. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Quick review: Fox and Sn95's Upper rear control arms tear Lower rear control arm attachments get deformed 4th gens Front control arm attachments crack Transmission mounts tear S197 Nothing reported, yet Anything else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smike Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Quick review: Fox, SN95, SN99 Upper rear control arms tear Lower rear control arm attachments get deformed 4th gens Front control arm attachments crack Transmission mounts tear S197 Nothing reported, yet Anything else? Added "new edge" SN99 as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHISSTC Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Added "new edge" SN99 as well. With mainly body styling changes and no significant chassis changes, I really dislike the SN95/SN99 separation. When written up, I'd like it to be consistent with the current CMC rules wording and state it as: "All Eligible Early Ford makes and models". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadracerwhite Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Fox, SN95, SN99 Upper rear control arms tear Lower rear control arm attachments get deformed 4th gens Front control arm attachments crack Transmission mounts tear S197 Nothing reported, yet Third gen front sub-frame spot welds rip free Anything else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHISSTC Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 ...this product which will fix my issues and strengthen the boxes. The only issue I see is the adjustability. Which can be easily fixed. Here is the product. http://wildridesracecars.com/store/product.php?productid=16176&cat=249&page=1 Back to the original post. Were you originally looking at and considering just the lower S-Box from Wild Rides? Or, were you looking both the upper and lower S-Box kit? I've been looking around and from what I've gleaned from several well documented installations on several different sites, the installation instructions leave something to be desired, but it's also not too difficult if you now how to weld and you are able to measure carefully. I found several references with regard to the lower torque boxes having an OEM control arm mounting location by utilizing the center mounting hole. However, I couldn't find any reference on the Wild Rides site or any other site that indicates the upper control arms retain an OEM mounting location. I submitted an email query to Wild Rides asking to verify if one of the three upper control arm mounting holes was in an OEM location. I think rules enforcement with these would be relatively easy. This company has the only complete kit that I know of that offers complete upper and lower torque box replacement. I would think a single entry could be made in the vehicle log book indicating one or both of these were installed in the car and that "___" mounting location is specified by the manufacturer as an OEM location. Similar wording could be written into the rules. If you see these on a car, look for the logbook documentation of installation that goes with it. Done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
37Stang Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 ...this product which will fix my issues and strengthen the boxes. The only issue I see is the adjustability. Which can be easily fixed. Here is the product. http://wildridesracecars.com/store/product.php?productid=16176&cat=249&page=1 Back to the original post. Were you originally looking at and considering just the lower S-Box from Wild Rides? Or, were you looking both the upper and lower S-Box kit? I've been looking around and from what I've gleaned from several well documented installations on several different sites, the installation instructions leave something to be desired, but it's also not too difficult if you now how to weld and you are able to measure carefully. I found several references with regard to the lower torque boxes having an OEM control arm mounting location by utilizing the center mounting hole. However, I couldn't find any reference on the Wild Rides site or any other site that indicates the upper control arms retain an OEM mounting location. I submitted an email query to Wild Rides asking to verify if one of the three upper control arm mounting holes was in an OEM location. I think rules enforcement with these would be relatively easy. This company has the only complete kit that I know of that offers complete upper and lower torque box replacement. I would think a single entry could be made in the vehicle log book indicating one or both of these were installed in the car and that "___" mounting location is specified by the manufacturer as an OEM location. Similar wording could be written into the rules. If you see these on a car, look for the logbook documentation of installation that goes with it. Done. Scott, I believe the center mounting hole of the upper "S-box" is considered to be the OEM location. "Stock suspension" drag racing classes have permitted the installation of the "S-box" for several years due to the weakness of the stock torque boxes. Those drag racing classes that require a very strict "stock suspension" typically specify that the UCA's must be in the center hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHISSTC Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 Scott, I believe the center mounting hole of the upper "S-box" is considered to be the OEM location. "Stock suspension" drag racing classes have permitted the installation of the "S-box" for several years due to the weakness of the stock torque boxes. Those drag racing classes that require a very strict "stock suspension" typically specify that the UCA's must be in the center hole. Cool. I could find it mentioned everywhere I looked that the OEM suspension mounting point was the center hole on the lower boxes, but I coun't find a single mention of the same thing applying to the upper boxes, even though that is what I was assuming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.