Ford drivers inside please.

[D Algozine]

Okay, honest question from somebody that has never owned a TA car on the concept of adjustability....

 

What, exactly, are the benefits to an adjustable vs. a fixed TA? I'm probably missing something here, but about the only thing that I could see an adjustable unit doing is offering a way to set pinion angle. I also don't see a pinion angle change being responsible for even a 0.1 second lap-time reduction, so I'll just come out and ask what the issue would be allowing the F-bodies to install an adjustable TA assuming the Fords are given access to one?

 

Dave,

UE has a decoupled TA for racing. The benefits are explained here:

http://www.unbalancedengineering.com/Camaro/TA/

 

There is a very large difference between a simple adjustable T arm and the UE decoupled.

 

There are two basic types of aftermarket T arms for late model Fbody, and UE has a proprietary design.

 

1) Trans mount (same as stock)

- Standard is non-adjustable

- Optional adjustable, pinion angle only

 

2) Tunnel bracket mounted

- Nearly all are adjustable, pinion angle only

 

Heres is one of the aftermarket companies http://umiperformance.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=7_115 , they are all very similar, except UE, which is an entirely different design and function.

 

Another aftermarket http://bmrsuspension.com/?page=products&vehicleid=6&maincatid=58&catid=169

[nape1548534725]

Yep. That why I don't understand why mustangs can't have them. It's only going to make the car more reliable. Fast guys will still be fast regardless.

 

Following Mustang rear suspension when Fox/SN95 cars were big in AI, it's going to make the car quicker as well. I would expect a torque arm Mustang to weigh similar to an F-body. My $.02.

 

Maybe I missed it, but are guys without PHBs having this same problem?

[Dillon]

Yep. That why I don't understand why mustangs can't have them. It's only going to make the car more reliable. Fast guys will still be fast regardless.

 

Following Mustang rear suspension when Fox/SN95 cars were big in AI, it's going to make the car quicker as well. I would expect a torque arm Mustang to weigh similar to an F-body. My $.02.

 

Maybe I missed it, but are guys without PHBs having this same problem?

Fox bodies are 2-300 lbs. lighter than SN95s (or at least new edge cars)...to be honest I don't understand why more people aren't building them, except that I know it's a lot more work, and of course starting with a newer chassis is always a good idea. I have also heard from some CMC racers that there's no benefit to running a lighter weight car, in fact, the higher HP / higher weight cars tend to be faster as long as they have good brakes. But that's another topic.

 

I would expect cars without PHBs to have MORE problems with the upper arms. After all part of their job is to locate the axle laterally, which the PHB takes care of.

[blk96gt]

Aaron (suck fumes) and Jerry (ShadowBolt) both run without a PHB. As far as I know they are running the same bushings, springs, etc in the rear end as well. Aaron has had no issues, and Jerry is going through them like candy.

[cozog1548534733]

I did just read that adding front or rear strut connectors can make the control arm situation worse. It said that the weak point of the stang chassis is the center portion and stiffening up the front or rear transfers the twisting/flex to the center of the car, adding more twist to an already maxed control arm.

 

I wonder how many guys that have had issues are running strut tower braces? And how many guys don't use them and have issues... and how many guys use a brace but no arm issues.

 

Just thinking out loud...

[blk96gt]

I'm not running a strut tower brace and have had the issues.

 

Are there any Mustang drivers from other regions going to respond? Are there not that many Mustang's elsewhere in the country? Are they not having any issues?

 

I'd like to hear what issues (if any) people have had while running a Poor Mans 3-Link. I was told on another forum that a PM3L would reduce the amount of stress put on the UCA, but that doesn't seem very intuitive to me. I would think with essentially only one link all the stress would be placed on that single arm. Although if have a PM3L reduced the amount of bind induced, there would be a reduction of load on that arm. I was also told that LOTS of people are running PM3L without issues, but I've yet to talk to any of them.

[Adam Ginsberg]

Is it at possible to keep Glenn's request on track, instead of going off, again, on a torque arm?

 

For clarification, I'm not a director, nor am I a CMC driver (any longer). Over the years, I've been right about a number of items that I'd been against in the rules, knowing it would become a problem later. Al, and a few other directors insisted otherwise.

 

I do, however, say exactly how I see things. Additionally, when it comes to rules changes, I do a shit-ton of research before deciding on which way to go. My philosophy is to make an informed decision. At least, as informed as possible based on the information I have at the time.

 

With that said, I'll post exactly what I explained during the 2014 rules process, which, ironically enough, was posted here without my permission:

 

• 1. Like it or not, control arms (front and rear) are consumable items. Certainly not like brake pads, but they are an item to inspect regularly, and replace when they show significant signs of wear.
   
  2. On a Ford, from my own experience, for the rear uppers, you do NOT want an aftermarket, super strong arm when using the standard, factory 4 link setup. Some flex is needed.
   
  3. Going to a different, stronger, aftermarket control arm WILL effect handling.
   
  4. From my own experience - I never went to a poor mans 3 link as I felt the trade-offs were too much. A Mustang wasn't designed to operate that way, so it does indeed impart a tremendous amount of stress on ONE suspension point when it should be two. Additionally, it's a CHOICE to run a PM3L, so the racer has to accept the consequences of that choice. I ran the standard 4 link for eleven years, and replaced my rear uppers 3 times in that period. When they got worn (bushings worn out, elongated mounting holes, etc), they got replaced. At a cost of approximately $40, per set. I always bought decent used arms with used bushings to keep the compliance in the rear.

 

I still believe in everything posted above, but will add a few more items to this list:

 

• 5. Bringing this up, now, part way into the season, and wanting the change to happen right now, is bullshit, IMO. The rules change period is over.
   
  6. My interpretation of how this is being presented is.....it's being rammed down our throat, which I don't like. That, in and of itself, is enough to make me say NO, regardless of the fact that I didn't agree with the change during the rules change process late last year.
   
  7. According to what I've gleaned, there are at least two (2) racers in TX having a problem with RUCAs - Jerry Jordan, and Michael Mosty.

 

Jerry, from my own personal experience, is a whiner. He stamps his foot, wants his way when he feels the rules are "against him" - his posts here prove that, as well as my own face-to-face interaction with him. He's also not the best driver, again, from my own experience of racing against him. His car has also had significant chassis damage due to his choices of running a PM3L, and now, the 4-link without a PHB. His torque boxes and RUCA mounts have been rebuilt, more than once. The battle box installation, and RUCA mount fixes were done AFTER he had the damage.

 

Michael is a not a whiner. He makes solid rules requests, backed by tech, understands when things don't go his way, and has learned to make his car fast as hell within the existing rules. He's a top-notch driver.....I owe him a debt that I likely can never repay for his outstanding driving skills....he avoided my car, with my then team-mate Lewis Tanner at the wheel, during the '05 Hallett event when he had a massive brake failure. Given his speed, he would have likely destroyed both cars, and someone easily could have been hurt. You will always have my respect and gratitude, Michael.

 

However, Michael's car has also had significant chassis damage over the years - torque boxes, as well as the RUCA mounts. The battle box and RUCA mount fixes were also done after the initial damage - IMO, this is important.

 

Aaron's car (suck fumes) doesn't appear to be having the same issue as Jerry or Michael. My thoughts on that are:

• 1. He runs the 4-link without a PHB (he's stated such here already)
  2. Hasn't had damage to his torque boxes, or his RUCA's, at least that he's mentioned here.
  3. If he's already installed the permitted fixes to the TQ boxes and RUCA mounts PRIOR to any damage occurring, I'd venture to say he may not see the RUCAs fail like Jerry and Michael have. Or, at a minimum, it will take awhile (a few years of hard racing) before it will appear.

 

To add to that:

Aaron (suck fumes) and Jerry (ShadowBolt) both run without a PHB. As far as I know they are running the same bushings, springs, etc in the rear end as well. Aaron has had no issues, and Jerry is going through them like candy.

 

My car never had torque box damage, and never had RUCA mount failures. It also never had the battle boxes installed, as they weren't needed. I went thru a total of three (3) sets of RUCAs - all of them were good used sets I found via other Mustang owners (from forums, local friends, etc).

 

In CA, the other Ford drivers have not been having RUCA problems, and have also not had chassis issues (torque boxes and RUCA mounts).

 

The distinction about cars with damage showing RUCA problems, and cars that AREN'T having RUCA problems, is, IMO, very important. Two cars have had damage, and have RUCA problems. Others without RUCA problems have not had RUCA problems. A coincidence? I don't think so - there could be other items at play causing the issue. What else, chassis-wise, was damaged? Has either car been to a frame shop to make sure the chassis is straight?? When the fixes were implemented, are we 100% certain there wasn't some "twist" or something similar in the chassis, when the welding was done?

 

I'm not trying to knock the folks that performed the repairs, but, again, from my own personal experience of having to repair a bent chassis (my own CMC car), getting on a frame alignment machine is absolutely CRITICAL in making sure fixes are implemented properly. When the work was done to my car, it was straight, as I made the shop show it to me. It wasn't a cheap fix, either.

 

So, that moves us onto getting replacements when the time comes.

 

A 5 second search on eBay, using nothing more than "Ford rear upper control arms" netted a number of decent, used sets of stock control arms, that are VERY reasonably priced:

 

• 1.

BIN of $24.99, with ~$20 ground shipping
2. Also a BIN of $24.99, with ~$20 ground shipping. Same seller as items #1.
3. $39.99 BIN, with free CONUS shipping. I'll admit, these have some light rust spots that would give me a tad bit of pause.
4. $52.75 BIN, free shipping.
5. $50.00 BIN, free shipping

 

Those are 5 very quick examples.

 

My argument of not wanting aftermarket parts is because:

 

• 1. It's not needed based on the information I posted above.
  2. Racing a Fox or SN95 car without a PHB will eventually lead to damaged RUCAs.
  3. Racing a Fox or SN95 with a PM3L will eventually lead to damaged RUCAs, as well as the RUCA mounts and torque boxes (if not strengthened)
  4. It's a racers choice to run their car that way. The existing rules already permit a way to deal with it (PHB).
  5. The fixes to Michael and Jerry's cars were done AFTER they had chassis damage.
  6. We don't know EXACTLY how the damaged cars were repaired to know if they are completely straight after the torque boxes and RUCA mounts were fixed (again, this is not an attack on the person who fixed either car).
  7. We continue to slide down the slippery slope of allowing WAY TOO MANY ITEMS IN CMC.

 

During the recent discussion to the directors regarding the RUCAs, I made points #1, #2, #3, #4 and #7 clear, as well as the ability to buy good, used parts via ebay, or to do some JY diving.

 

If a racer wants to buy NEW Ford RUCAs, they'll have to pay what the market will bear. We have that problem with a number of items in our rulebook - the EFI intake manifolds (can't get those new), TB (can't get those new either), ECUs (yeah, good luck with that...if you can buy it new, the cost will be VERY high), etc.

 

A response by one of the directors was - "I'll also throw out something no one has mentioned... safety. You wouldn't be allowed, nor would you want to, pick a car our of a junk yard/craigslist and put it straight on the track. So why force people to use rusted, unreliable, junk yard parts?!? Quote: "Some items in our rulebook are junkyard only items. We're racing 25+ year old cars. It is what it is." WTF are we, a professionally run race series or a bunch of hillbillys dirt trackin in the back 40?"

 

I never suggested using "rusty, unreliable junk yard parts". I did suggest going to the JY to find decent replacements, as well as looking on ebay, various web forums, etc. Additionally, I never suggested "picking a car out of the JY/craigslist and putting it straight on track" - that's stupid, and not what I said, nor implied. Using it in the argument to allow aftermarket RUCAs is ridiculous, and completely disingenuous.

 

Micheal - you wanted to know how a dissenting director came up with their decision? That's how I came to my own. You don't have to like it, nor agree with it.

 

I doubt, however, one can argue with the amount of time I spent to come to my informed decision, nor the time I took here to help other racers understand it.

[37Stang]

Just to address what Adam said about the "rusty" upper control arms... Mine looked much, much worse than those he linked for sale on E-Bay. I was planning to replace them simply due to the rust but decided to put them in the blaster just to see how they would turn out... Less than 10 minutes later and a coat of paint and they looked better than brand new.

[suck fumes1548534743]

A PHB will not prevent the arms from getting destroyed.

[D Algozine]

Adam has spent a great deal of effort and put together a comprehensive response. I will add a few observations, opinions and questions.

Currently not a Mustang racer, but I was several years ago. I briefly raced in CMC1 with a 4link and panhard bar. Personally, I didn't like it. It was prone to snap oversteer. May have just been my set up, but that's my experience.

 

All Mustangs have 100-150 lb advantage over the GM cars. I assume this is needed because these cars don't handle as well as the GM cars. Is this because the lesser performing Mustangs weight benefit masks it's suspension issues ? Just asking.

 

The Fox/SN95 rear suspension is a poor design for road racing. bushing deflection and control arm bind is not a good thing. Apparently some have made it work, but does that mean it is good for the class, now?

 

We need a larger sample study of early Mustangs, who are currently racing

 

The CMC2 (current rules) has more HP and better braking then in the past. Cars are faster, and weak points may have surfaced as a result.

[CMC#11]

Yep. That why I don't understand why mustangs can't have them. It's only going to make the car more reliable. Fast guys will still be fast regardless.

 

Following Mustang rear suspension when Fox/SN95 cars were big in AI, it's going to make the car quicker as well. I would expect a torque arm Mustang to weigh similar to an F-body. My $.02.

 

Maybe I missed it, but are guys without PHBs having this same problem?

Fox bodies are 2-300 lbs. lighter than SN95s (or at least new edge cars)...to be honest I don't understand why more people aren't building them, except that I know it's a lot more work, and of course starting with a newer chassis is always a good idea. I have also heard from some CMC racers that there's no benefit to running a lighter weight car, in fact, the higher HP / higher weight cars tend to be faster as long as they have good brakes. But that's another topic.

 

I would expect cars without PHBs to have MORE problems with the upper arms. After all part of their job is to locate the axle laterally, which the PHB takes care of.

Please do not post terribly inaccurate information. I understand people can make mistakes but it sounds like you know nothing about what you posted.

 

Fox bodies are in face 50 lbs lighter than SN95's (not 2-300 lbs). They are also 150 lbs lighter than LT1 4th gens and 200 lbs lighter than LS1 4th gens.

 

How can you think a lighter car is not an advantage? With the same HP, I have never heard anyone that would prefer to build a heavier car. When you say higher HP / higher weight, are you thinking of AI? In CMC, every car is at 260 hp. You can go up to 267 hp but those do carry a weight penalty and the hp/lb ratio goes down immediately.

[CMC#11]

Regarding Adam's post, there are a few things I agree with and a few other things I feel are completely off the mark:

 

Regarding those in TX who have experienced rear UCA failures, there are many more than just myself and Jerry Jordan.

Also include, Kevin Jander (SN95), Craig McCormick (fox), John Martin (SN95), and Jeremy Gunter (SN99). I am not sure about Wade Zimmer (fox).

That is well over 1/2 of of the Mustangs in TX, some have been racing 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, and 9 years.

Some have been running a stock 4-link with panhard bar, others a 4-link with no panhard bar, and myself a PM3L.

 

Adam, you have not raced in TX in over 5 years. You stated in another thread for drivers to not talk trash about CA b/c they have not raced there and don't fully know what goes on in that region. I ask you to do the same in your posts regarding TX as well.

 

You also personally attacked Jerry Jordan and if you have an issue with him that is b/w the two of you, not the CMC nation. You stated Jerry is "not the best driver" and that you have personal race experience with him. This was back when Jerry was a rookie driver and you were an experienced veteran. I guarantee you that if the two of you raced now, it would be a completely different story.

Jerry had 2 race wins last year. Both wins came with 10+ car fields and on inverts where Jerry started at the back of the pack (due to his good finishing positions in the prior races). Also in both races, I was side-by-side with Jerry and he plain out-raced me and all other competitors to earn those victories. Jerry is the epitome of a model CMC racer in showing up to events, always having a smile on his face, and helping any CMC driver in what is needed to get on track.

You stated in another thread you are the first to admit when you are wrong and offer an apology, I feel that is the case here.

[D Algozine]

Adam has spent a great deal of effort and put together a comprehensive response. I will add a few observations, opinions and questions.

Currently not a Mustang racer, but I was several years ago. I briefly raced in CMC1 with a 4link and panhard bar. Personally, I didn't like it. It was prone to snap oversteer. May have just been my set up, but that's my experience.

 

All Mustangs have 100-150 lb advantage over the GM cars. I assume this is needed because these cars don't handle as well as the GM cars. Is this because the lesser performing Mustangs weight benefit masks it's suspension issues ? Just asking.

 

The Fox/SN95 rear suspension is a poor design for road racing. bushing deflection and control arm bind is not a good thing. Apparently some have made it work, but does that mean it is good for the class, now?

 

We need a larger sample study of early Mustangs, who are currently racing

 

The CMC2 (current rules) has more HP and better braking then in the past. Cars are faster, and weak points may have surfaced as a result.

 

I couple other points:

 

Is there a very fine line or very narrow variance in getting it just right vs. having the rear bind up ? Does driving style play a roll? Some of this is subjective, but some of it is not. The dynamics of the geometry are well documented, the opinions of how, or if it works is the grey area.

[Dillon]

Yep. That why I don't understand why mustangs can't have them. It's only going to make the car more reliable. Fast guys will still be fast regardless.

 

Following Mustang rear suspension when Fox/SN95 cars were big in AI, it's going to make the car quicker as well. I would expect a torque arm Mustang to weigh similar to an F-body. My $.02.

 

Maybe I missed it, but are guys without PHBs having this same problem?

Fox bodies are 2-300 lbs. lighter than SN95s (or at least new edge cars)...to be honest I don't understand why more people aren't building them, except that I know it's a lot more work, and of course starting with a newer chassis is always a good idea. I have also heard from some CMC racers that there's no benefit to running a lighter weight car, in fact, the higher HP / higher weight cars tend to be faster as long as they have good brakes. But that's another topic.

 

I would expect cars without PHBs to have MORE problems with the upper arms. After all part of their job is to locate the axle laterally, which the PHB takes care of.

Please do not post terribly inaccurate information. I understand people can make mistakes but it sounds like you know nothing about what you posted.

 

Fox bodies are in face 50 lbs lighter than SN95's (not 2-300 lbs). They are also 150 lbs lighter than LT1 4th gens and 200 lbs lighter than LS1 4th gens.

 

How can you think a lighter car is not an advantage? With the same HP, I have never heard anyone that would prefer to build a heavier car. When you say higher HP / higher weight, are you thinking of AI? In CMC, every car is at 260 hp. You can go up to 267 hp but those do carry a weight penalty and the hp/lb ratio goes down immediately.

Not with the same HP, but with higher HP than I thought is actually allowed. After reading back through the rules, it's clear that the lighter you can build a car, the better. I'll be the first to say I don't have experience racing CMC cars firsthand, just hearsay. And, in retrospect, I actually was thinking of AI, because back then many CMC guys in the RM region were racing AI. And the weights I was going off were stock LX fox vs. stock GT SN99 which I suppose isn't relative for racing anyway. My apologies

[Glenn]

There is the GM cars too. If they do allow a TA for mustangs one day then they should also allow aftermarket ones for GMs

 

Disagree. Adding TAs to stangs only evens the playing field.

 

Assuming the field isn't level now.

If the TA's are allowed, a fixed pinion angle may be required. One that isn't provided by current Mustang TA manufactures. Changing pinion angle changes accell/decell grip. Allowing aftermarket Ford TA's will require the same for GM's. Also consider the issues w/ the GM's that do have it. Rear wheel hop limits the braking force allowed. The TA for GM's is also a stamped sheet metal part. Acts like a spring and is marginally up to street duty.

 

Back on topic (the comment above).

The playing field is leveled by various means.

Aero

F/R weight bias

Track width

wheel base

area under the curve (HP/TQ)

legal trans gear ratios

OEM suspension design

 

Change any one of those issues and the balance gets changed.

 

My guess is, allow TA's for Mustangs and the weights will be made pretty much the same for all platforms. GM's will get some track width back or Mustangs will have some taken away (Fords have been given a greater percent increase over OEM than GM's by a wide margin). If we take it away from Mustangs, who's wheels are now not legal?

 

So while allowing the TA's may have been the right call 3-4 years back, it was impossible to tell that from way back then. The path forward at the time each change was made was finding the lowest cost option that impacted the fewest people. Looking back we can always see what the correct answer was, it's the looking forward part us humans haven't figured out too well. so

 

So saying allowing TA's for Fords will level the playing field is not right. Most feel the performance envelope of all the cars is pretty damn tight right now.

[Glenn]

Is it at possible to keep Glenn's request on track, instead of going off, again, on a torque arm?

 

For clarification, I'm not a director, nor am I a CMC driver (any longer). Over the years, I've been right about a number of items that I'd been against in the rules, knowing it would become a problem later. Al, and a few other directors insisted otherwise.

 

I do, however, say exactly how I see things. Additionally, when it comes to rules changes, I do a shit-ton of research before deciding on which way to go. My philosophy is to make an informed decision. At least, as informed as possible based on the information I have at the time.

 

With that said, I'll post exactly what I explained during the 2014 rules process, which, ironically enough, was posted here without my permission:

 

• 1. Like it or not, control arms (front and rear) are consumable items. Certainly not like brake pads, but they are an item to inspect regularly, and replace when they show significant signs of wear.
   
  2. On a Ford, from my own experience, for the rear uppers, you do NOT want an aftermarket, super strong arm when using the standard, factory 4 link setup. Some flex is needed.
   
  3. Going to a different, stronger, aftermarket control arm WILL effect handling.
   
  4. From my own experience - I never went to a poor mans 3 link as I felt the trade-offs were too much. A Mustang wasn't designed to operate that way, so it does indeed impart a tremendous amount of stress on ONE suspension point when it should be two. Additionally, it's a CHOICE to run a PM3L, so the racer has to accept the consequences of that choice. I ran the standard 4 link for eleven years, and replaced my rear uppers 3 times in that period. When they got worn (bushings worn out, elongated mounting holes, etc), they got replaced. At a cost of approximately $40, per set. I always bought decent used arms with used bushings to keep the compliance in the rear.

 

I still believe in everything posted above, but will add a few more items to this list:

 

• 5. Bringing this up, now, part way into the season, and wanting the change to happen right now, is bullshit, IMO. The rules change period is over.
   
  6. My interpretation of how this is being presented is.....it's being rammed down our throat, which I don't like. That, in and of itself, is enough to make me say NO, regardless of the fact that I didn't agree with the change during the rules change process late last year.
   
  7. According to what I've gleaned, there are at least two (2) racers in TX having a problem with RUCAs - Jerry Jordan, and Michael Mosty.

 

Jerry, from my own personal experience, is a whiner. He stamps his foot, wants his way when he feels the rules are "against him" - his posts here prove that, as well as my own face-to-face interaction with him. He's also not the best driver, again, from my own experience of racing against him. His car has also had significant chassis damage due to his choices of running a PM3L, and now, the 4-link without a PHB. His torque boxes and RUCA mounts have been rebuilt, more than once. The battle box installation, and RUCA mount fixes were done AFTER he had the damage.

 

Michael is a not a whiner. He makes solid rules requests, backed by tech, understands when things don't go his way, and has learned to make his car fast as hell within the existing rules. He's a top-notch driver.....I owe him a debt that I likely can never repay for his outstanding driving skills....he avoided my car, with my then team-mate Lewis Tanner at the wheel, during the '05 Hallett event when he had a massive brake failure. Given his speed, he would have likely destroyed both cars, and someone easily could have been hurt. You will always have my respect and gratitude, Michael.

 

However, Michael's car has also had significant chassis damage over the years - torque boxes, as well as the RUCA mounts. The battle box and RUCA mount fixes were also done after the initial damage - IMO, this is important.

 

Aaron's car (suck fumes) doesn't appear to be having the same issue as Jerry or Michael. My thoughts on that are:

• 1. He runs the 4-link without a PHB (he's stated such here already)
  2. Hasn't had damage to his torque boxes, or his RUCA's, at least that he's mentioned here.
  3. If he's already installed the permitted fixes to the TQ boxes and RUCA mounts PRIOR to any damage occurring, I'd venture to say he may not see the RUCAs fail like Jerry and Michael have. Or, at a minimum, it will take awhile (a few years of hard racing) before it will appear.

 

To add to that:

Aaron (suck fumes) and Jerry (ShadowBolt) both run without a PHB. As far as I know they are running the same bushings, springs, etc in the rear end as well. Aaron has had no issues, and Jerry is going through them like candy.

 

My car never had torque box damage, and never had RUCA mount failures. It also never had the battle boxes installed, as they weren't needed. I went thru a total of three (3) sets of RUCAs - all of them were good used sets I found via other Mustang owners (from forums, local friends, etc).

 

In CA, the other Ford drivers have not been having RUCA problems, and have also not had chassis issues (torque boxes and RUCA mounts).

 

The distinction about cars with damage showing RUCA problems, and cars that AREN'T having RUCA problems, is, IMO, very important. Two cars have had damage, and have RUCA problems. Others without RUCA problems have not had RUCA problems. A coincidence? I don't think so - there could be other items at play causing the issue. What else, chassis-wise, was damaged? Has either car been to a frame shop to make sure the chassis is straight?? When the fixes were implemented, are we 100% certain there wasn't some "twist" or something similar in the chassis, when the welding was done?

 

I'm not trying to knock the folks that performed the repairs, but, again, from my own personal experience of having to repair a bent chassis (my own CMC car), getting on a frame alignment machine is absolutely CRITICAL in making sure fixes are implemented properly. When the work was done to my car, it was straight, as I made the shop show it to me. It wasn't a cheap fix, either.

 

So, that moves us onto getting replacements when the time comes.

 

A 5 second search on eBay, using nothing more than "Ford rear upper control arms" netted a number of decent, used sets of stock control arms, that are VERY reasonably priced:

 

• 1.

BIN of $24.99, with ~$20 ground shipping
2. Also a BIN of $24.99, with ~$20 ground shipping. Same seller as items #1.
3. $39.99 BIN, with free CONUS shipping. I'll admit, these have some light rust spots that would give me a tad bit of pause.
4. $52.75 BIN, free shipping.
5. $50.00 BIN, free shipping

 

Those are 5 very quick examples.

 

My argument of not wanting aftermarket parts is because:

 

• 1. It's not needed based on the information I posted above.
  2. Racing a Fox or SN95 car without a PHB will eventually lead to damaged RUCAs.
  3. Racing a Fox or SN95 with a PM3L will eventually lead to damaged RUCAs, as well as the RUCA mounts and torque boxes (if not strengthened)
  4. It's a racers choice to run their car that way. The existing rules already permit a way to deal with it (PHB).
  5. The fixes to Michael and Jerry's cars were done AFTER they had chassis damage.
  6. We don't know EXACTLY how the damaged cars were repaired to know if they are completely straight after the torque boxes and RUCA mounts were fixed (again, this is not an attack on the person who fixed either car).
  7. We continue to slide down the slippery slope of allowing WAY TOO MANY ITEMS IN CMC.

 

During the recent discussion to the directors regarding the RUCAs, I made points #1, #2, #3, #4 and #7 clear, as well as the ability to buy good, used parts via ebay, or to do some JY diving.

 

If a racer wants to buy NEW Ford RUCAs, they'll have to pay what the market will bear. We have that problem with a number of items in our rulebook - the EFI intake manifolds (can't get those new), TB (can't get those new either), ECUs (yeah, good luck with that...if you can buy it new, the cost will be VERY high), etc.

 

A response by one of the directors was - "I'll also throw out something no one has mentioned... safety. You wouldn't be allowed, nor would you want to, pick a car our of a junk yard/craigslist and put it straight on the track. So why force people to use rusted, unreliable, junk yard parts?!? Quote: "Some items in our rulebook are junkyard only items. We're racing 25+ year old cars. It is what it is." WTF are we, a professionally run race series or a bunch of hillbillys dirt trackin in the back 40?"

 

I never suggested using "rusty, unreliable junk yard parts". I did suggest going to the JY to find decent replacements, as well as looking on ebay, various web forums, etc. Additionally, I never suggested "picking a car out of the JY/craigslist and putting it straight on track" - that's stupid, and not what I said, nor implied. Using it in the argument to allow aftermarket RUCAs is ridiculous, and completely disingenuous.

 

Micheal - you wanted to know how a dissenting director came up with their decision? That's how I came to my own. You don't have to like it, nor agree with it.

 

I doubt, however, one can argue with the amount of time I spent to come to my informed decision, nor the time I took here to help other racers understand it.

 

Glad one Director (now former) is willing to do this. Although Adam has been one of the few who will do it more times than not.

Good post.

[CMC#11]

No worries Dillon. The weight differences b/w platforms is always a sensitive subject of discussion so just always want to see the accurate numbers.

[Glenn]

...... but I do know their TA attaches to the transmission tailhousing. That is a weak design that I am sure has been fixed by the aftermarket. I wonder how many GM cars have broken tailhousings? They could be stronger than I think they are.

 

I ran a 3600lb 98 Camaro street track car for 5 years before coming to CMC.

450rwhp/420rwtq

315's R compounds at all 4 corners for track duty. 4 pot Brembo's.

Complete non-OEM suspension which included a LG Motorsports Torque Arm. Used OEM mounting points w/ OEM pinion angle. the arm was mounted on the trans like stock but used a spherical bearing in place of a rubber bushing. Never broke the tail shaft even when drag racing it. Auto cars are different. They break them all the time - driveshaft issues.

 

The only gain the LG one gave you was a stiffer arm. Helped rear wheel hop stay away longer but when it happened it was far more violent.

 

Adding one to a Mustang - you guys can expect it to happen to you as well.

[Glenn]

Michael Mosty also is right on the money Adam. You called out Jordan for no reason. You are irate for BL doing it to you, but you didn't hesitate to do it to someone else.

 

Shame, shame.....

 

While BL may have been out of line for his comments, so were you.

[cozog1548534733]

There is the GM cars too. If they do allow a TA for mustangs one day then they should also allow aftermarket ones for GMs

 

Disagree. Adding TAs to stangs only evens the playing field.

 

Assuming the field isn't level now.

If the TA's are allowed, a fixed pinion angle may be required. One that isn't provided by current Mustang TA manufactures. Changing pinion angle changes accell/decell grip. Allowing aftermarket Ford TA's will require the same for GM's. Also consider the issues w/ the GM's that do have it. Rear wheel hop limits the braking force allowed. The TA for GM's is also a stamped sheet metal part. Acts like a spring and is marginally up to street duty.

 

Back on topic (the comment above).

The playing field is leveled by various means.

Aero

F/R weight bias

Track width

wheel base

area under the curve (HP/TQ)

legal trans gear ratios

OEM suspension design

 

Change any one of those issues and the balance gets changed.

 

My guess is, allow TA's for Mustangs and the weights will be made pretty much the same for all platforms. GM's will get some track width back or Mustangs will have some taken away (Fords have been given a greater percent increase over OEM than GM's by a wide margin). If we take it away from Mustangs, who's wheels are now not legal?

 

So while allowing the TA's may have been the right call 3-4 years back, it was impossible to tell that from way back then. The path forward at the time each change was made was finding the lowest cost option that impacted the fewest people. Looking back we can always see what the correct answer was, it's the looking forward part us humans haven't figured out too well. so

 

So saying allowing TA's for Fords will level the playing field is not right. Most feel the performance envelope of all the cars is pretty damn tight right now.

 

You're right. I was trying to give a short answer, but should have elaborated more. Yes, allowing a TA on Mustangs would require some other offset in performance. The more I learn about TA for Mustang, the more I see it might be overkill and provide too much perf gain. I've heard that from a couple of knowledgeable people now. I'm still learning...

[Adam Ginsberg]

Michael Mosty also is right on the money Adam. You called out Jordan for no reason. You are irate for BL doing it to you, but you didn't hesitate to do it to someone else.

 

Shame, shame.....

 

While BL may have been out of line for his comments, so were you.

 

You may view it as "calling him out".

 

I don't.

 

My experiences with him are part of how I came to my decision regarding your recent email to the directors about the Ford RUCA gig. Micheal asked about how some of the dissenting directors came to their decision, so I documented it, as requested.

 

You, and others, may not agree with my presentation in this case. That's fine - I'm not saying anyone has to.

 

FWIW, I've not always agreed with your presentation either.

 

As such, I'm not apologizing or changing what I wrote as it's based on my own personal experiences with Jerry. Your perception of him may not be identical to mine, as you may not have had the same experience(s).

 

Although, maybe it would be helpful if you shared the experience you had with Jerry over his front bumper structure/bumper cover a year or so ago.....

 

As for BryanL, I'll remind you, again, what he stated:

 

Huge reason is the time/effort that our directors give to those that are interested in our racing and the way our group helps/welcomes new guys. The opposite happened out in Cali which is sad-amazing they don't have a single car.

 

The context of his comment comes from this thread about whether or not CMC is growing, or in "status quo".

 

Reading that comment, BryanL is saying the reason CA has no CMC cars racing any longer is because the CA directors didn't invest any time/effort to potential new folks interested in racing CMC, and, that the CA racers themselves didn't help/welcome new guys.

 

Besides the fact it's not true, the simple reality is.....he has zero direct experience racing in CA, as he's never raced here. Yet, he's trying to state, as fact, that we didn't welcome/help any new or potential racer. As the former CA director, and long time CMC racer, it's an offensive statement, not based in fact.

 

The other CA racers should be equally ticked off at such a bullshit comment because the camaraderie out here is just like it is in TX - racers (and the directors) helping one other when something goes wrong, handing over parts to get someone back on track, BBQs in the evenings, etc.

 

When/if a potential CA racer saw that, they'd likely not want to race in CA, because that comment says the folks here don't give a shit about new racers.

 

As much as we butt heads, Glenn, you know that's not anywhere close to the truth.

 

BryanL (and all the TX racers) enjoy great CMC racing in TX because several people worked their collective asses off to make that region what it is. My efforts were just one of many.

 

He spoke out of his ass.

 

Not the same thing in my book. If you think they're the same, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Glenn]

I'm not debating your opinion of Jerry, but rather your double standard.

 

However - Jerry has been a model CMC racer for a very long time. You are in fact wrong about Jerry.

 

Is this another example of "I'm leaving and I'm gonna slam the door and make sure they hear me on my way out"?

Surely your better than that. If not, it puts you in with some pretty bitter company.

 

This whole control arm thing was not started by Jerry. It was started by another local CMC'er. Jerry was in on the earlier talks about it at our last event in 2013 (as were all CMC Mustang drivers in attendance). He hasn't mentioned a word to me until I approached the Directors a couple weeks back. He knew I was working to change the rules. He called and asked if he could do what we are letting the "test mule" do. Like I said, I thought it was a slam dunk, and told him yes along w/ the standard precautions about nothing is final until it is in print. Local allowance only. Bla, bla, bla.

 

You have assumed too much about this being a reaction to Jerry's wants.

[Adam Ginsberg]

I'm not debating your opinion of Jerry, but rather your double standard.

 

As explained, I fail to see the double standard. I have experience dealing with Jerry. BryanL has zero experience racing in CA.

 

Not a double standard.

 

However - Jerry has been a model CMC racer for a very long time. You are in fact wrong about Jerry.

 

That's YOUR perspective of Jerry. Not mine, based my own interaction with him. Ok, he may be a better driver than he was when we raced against each other several years ago. However, from what I've seen then, and now, he still does the figurative foot stomping when he wants something.

 

Is this another example of "I'm leaving and I'm gonna slam the door and make sure they hear me on my way out"?

Surely your better than that. If not, it puts you in with some pretty bitter company.

 

It's pretty frustrating for you to toss out a ridiculous comment like that....it tries to discredit what I've written by taking the focus away. Don't do that.

 

If it was really all about "slamming the door so people hear me on the way out", there's no way I'd have invested the time I did to provide the information regarding my decision, and it certainly wouldn't have been as comprehensive.

 

So, no, that's not the case.

 

This whole control arm thing was not started by Jerry. It was started by another local CMC'er. Jerry was in on the earlier talks about it at our last event in 2013 (as were all CMC Mustang drivers in attendance). He hasn't mentioned a word to me until I approached the Directors a couple weeks back. He knew I was working to change the rules. He called and asked if he could do what we are letting the "test mule" do. Like I said, I thought it was a slam dunk, and told him yes along w/ the standard precautions about nothing is final until it is in print. Local allowance only. Bla, bla, bla.

 

You have assumed too much about this being a reaction to Jerry's wants.

 

What you presented to the entire CMC directors group were pictures of Jerry's parts (labeled "Jordan Upper LCA 1.png" and "Jordan Upper LCA 2.png"), explaining what's happening to his SN99 car, etc.

 

As such, based on your presentation to the directors, it looked like an issue primarily for Jerry, and that he was asking for the change.

[64GunPilot]

There is the GM cars too. If they do allow a TA for mustangs one day then they should also allow aftermarket ones for GMs

 

Disagree. Adding TAs to stangs only evens the playing field.

 

Assuming the field isn't level now.

If the TA's are allowed, a fixed pinion angle may be required. One that isn't provided by current Mustang TA manufactures. Changing pinion angle changes accell/decell grip. Allowing aftermarket Ford TA's will require the same for GM's. Also consider the issues w/ the GM's that do have it. Rear wheel hop limits the braking force allowed. The TA for GM's is also a stamped sheet metal part. Acts like a spring and is marginally up to street duty.

 

Back on topic (the comment above).

The playing field is leveled by various means.

Aero

F/R weight bias

Track width

wheel base

area under the curve (HP/TQ)

legal trans gear ratios

OEM suspension design

 

Change any one of those issues and the balance gets changed.

 

My guess is, allow TA's for Mustangs and the weights will be made pretty much the same for all platforms. GM's will get some track width back or Mustangs will have some taken away (Fords have been given a greater percent increase over OEM than GM's by a wide margin). If we take it away from Mustangs, who's wheels are now not legal?

 

So while allowing the TA's may have been the right call 3-4 years back, it was impossible to tell that from way back then. The path forward at the time each change was made was finding the lowest cost option that impacted the fewest people. Looking back we can always see what the correct answer was, it's the looking forward part us humans haven't figured out too well. so

 

So saying allowing TA's for Fords will level the playing field is not right. Most feel the performance envelope of all the cars is pretty damn tight right now.

 

Back on topic....

 

From all I have read in this thread, it seems the argument for TA on the Fords is simply for reliability and cutting costs of maintenance. Not leveling the playing field between platforms.

 

When I initially began planning to get into CMC, I wanted to run a Fox. I still do. I even PM'd and chatted with Michael Mosty about his car and wow....what a guy. Very welcoming and willing to help. Thank you Michael.

 

But I have to say from my standpoint, I really don't want those rear end problems everyone hear talks about. I don't like the sound of that. And I have since decided to go with the Fbody platform SIMPLY because of the RUCA problems with the Fords. If the rules were to change and allow TA on the Fords, I would change my mind back to a FOX in a heartbeat because I know those cars very well.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the arguement here is not about performance and lack of parity between platforms, but more about about reliability and overall cost of maintenance. The whole point of CMC is affordable muscle car racing right? If decisions could be made to lower costs and increase reliability, wouldn't we make them?

[Glenn]

As such, based on your presentation to the directors, it looked like an issue primarily for Jerry, and that he was asking for the change.

 

Funny what happens when we assume. I used Jerry as a worst case example.