Rules open season!

[Al Fernandez]

Todd and I both posted on our respective national forums that we are officially in rules revision season. Both for AI and CMC we're asking for rules change requests (RCR) in the same format. Since Todd and I are both here, please submit your thoughts to us both and copy Glenn.

--- 1) Name / Region / Car # / Contact Info (email or phone, etc)
--- 2) Rule reference # (ex.- Rule 3.2 – Title, Part, section…)
--- 3) Recommended Revised Wording
--- 4) Reasoning for change MUST include at least 1 of the following:
---------->a) Willl decrease series cost because…
---------->b) Will increase driver safety because...
---------->c) Will increase series growth because…
---------->d) Will improve competition because…
---------->e) Will provide more clarity because...

[michaelmosty]

Is it possible for us non-directors to also see what is being suggested?

[cjlmlml]

Is it possible for us non-directors to also see what is being suggested?


FOOL ! HOW DARE YOU MAKE SUCH A REQUEST!

[Al Fernandez]

In CMC we've published a list of everything that has been suggested and we'll continue to do so. In AI I dont believe JWL ever did that formally, but its Todd's show now. Todd?

[Fbody383]

Open season lasts until???


As in the past, we want to get next years rules out by the end of October. Our goal is to only make changes that clarify intent unless the change reduces cost, improves safety, or enables closer competition (closer does not mean lower lap times by the way!).

So... sooner rather than later; check.


EDIT: because i thought i didn't read what Al didn't post and was going to own up to posting before reading again.

[David Love AI27]

rules??? lol... beer burns when it comes out your nose...........

are these so called "rules":

A.) national rules
B.) regional rules
C.) both
D.) neither
E.) all of the above
F.) none of the above
G.) optional
H. includes all directors
I.) excludes all directors

or

J.) now, only apply to CMC1 #3

sorry Jason... I couldn't resist....
?????

[Todd Covini]

In CMC we've published a list of everything that has been suggested and we'll continue to do so. In AI I dont believe JWL ever did that formally, but its Todd's show now. Todd?

Last year I provided a list of things that were submitted/suggested and I'll do the same this year. Check the historical AI posts over on the nasaforums.

-=- Todd

[Al Fernandez]

Since not all of you visit the CMC national site, this is what is on the list so far. Remember, these are requests by CMC drivers, not an indication of a decision.

- Allow 305 vortec heads 12552520 or 12558059 in addition to the L31 heads already allowed for GM CMC2 cars

- Clarify allowances for trimming under the dash

- Clarify requirements for covering dash openings and replacement of trim pieces such as the 4th gen under windshield cover, glove box doors, etc.

- Allow T56 and 6060 transmissions in 4.6 cars to enable alternate 5th gear options

- Allow Performer RPM and Performer RPM Air Gap manifolds in GM carbed CMC2 cars as we already do for Fords

- Clarify that any of the specified components can be used for a carbed engine, its not that all must be used

- Clarify home made air filter assemblies are ok

- Enable defeating steering wheel lock, not just removal

- Limit driver rearward relocation by requiring pedals to be bolted to OE location and not allowing the combination of custom pedals, shifter, and steering column extension

- Allow installation of anti theft defeating devices as long as they are external to the PCM

- Allow high temp coatings on exhaust manifolds

- Clarify 4th gens can modify PS pumps, but must use an OE pump not an aftermarket one

- Clarify CMC min wheel weight is 16, not "more than" 16

- Allow aluminum pressure plates as they are stock in some applications

- Modify dyno procedure to require water temp between 185 and 205, not at specific temps. Require temp to be measured by something other than the car's gauge.

- Review strut tower bar to cage 7th and 8th points provision

[GlennCMC70]

Modify dyno procedure to require water temp between 185 and 205, not at specific temps. Require temp to be measured by something other than the car's gauge.

How about something other than the cars OEM guage.
I'm fairly confident in my cars Autometer guage.

And wow, alot of those are mine. Whats up w/ that?

[RichardP]

And wow, alot of those are mine. Whats up w/ that?


You’re still naive enough to believe it’s a real exercise??? :D


Richard P.

[marshall_mosty]

Modify dyno procedure to require water temp between 185 and 205, not at specific temps. Require temp to be measured by something other than the car's gauge.

How about something other than the cars OEM guage.
I'm fairly confident in my cars Autometer guage.

And wow, alot of those are mine. Whats up w/ that?
It's not that I don't trust an autometer guage, but the placement of the sending unit in the cooling system will drastically alter the temperature it records. If you know that your car runs better one way or the other, the placement of the sender could be manipulated. I would suggest reading something like the radiator inlet with an IR gun to normalize this procedure... JMHO.

[cobra132]

AI rule proposal: Each AI car must have a pair of dice suspended 4.3 inches from the rear view mirror. They must be 2.2 inches on each side and be constructed of nomex cloth in two contrasting colors that compliment the general appearance of dash board (see applicable new rule x.x) and generally be aesthetically pleasing to the eye. AI cars that are equipped with an air ride suspension system are exempt from this rule.

[MikeP99Z]

Is that an average of 4.3"? Can the left be hanging lower than the right? Is there an elasticity factor for the string?

Since you drive a Ford (not directed at you personally Frank), I assume that cost containment is not an issue, therefore you can spend whatever you want on the dice or on the air ride suspension system and have it written into the rules as approved. You also get a 9.3:1 hp/wt ratio if the dice are loaded and can dyno-cert however the heck you please. :evil:

[MikeP99Z]

Two rules regulators and the racer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA90IlymdZ4&feature=player_embedded#at=56

[David Love AI27]

Two rules regulators and the racer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA90IlymdZ4&feature=player_embedded#at=56

The best part:

"The question is: What is a Mahna Mahna"?


"WHO CARES!"

[mitchntx]

It appears the Ford camp can mix and match any engine component from any platform as long as it bolts up.

Why can't the GM side of the get that consideration?

When asked if I could run a camshaft from an Impala, I was told no.

[GlennCMC70]

It appears the Ford camp can mix and match any engine component from any platform as long as it bolts up.

Why can't the GM side of the get that consideration?

When asked if I could run a camshaft from an Impala, I was told no.
You mean Explorer intakes and the like?

[BlueFirePony]

It appears the Ford camp can mix and match any engine component from any platform as long as it bolts up.

Why can't the GM side of the get that consideration?

When asked if I could run a camshaft from an Impala, I was told no.
You mean Explorer intakes and the like?
Or John Deere? I need more torque...

[Al Fernandez]

Mitch you're probably not accounting for time. When you and Glenn wanted to run impala cams only CMC existed, no CMC2. The whole point of running impala cams was to get more lower end torque, not to fix cars not being able to make numbers or even resolve a supply issue, so it was denied.

We had to open up some engine component options for some of the engines when we created CMC2 and the 260/310 target. There was no way a stock 302HO was going to hit that, so we had to allow other parts. Allowing explorer parts made a lot of sense from a cost and availability perspective.

Note that on the table right now is allowing non camaro/firebird parts for the 305s for CMC2 as well. In other words, the GM side does get that same consideration.

[mitchntx]

Mitch you're probably not accounting for time. When you and Glenn wanted to run impala cams only CMC existed, no CMC2. The whole point of running impala cams was to get more lower end torque, not to fix cars not being able to make numbers or even resolve a supply issue, so it was denied.

We had to open up some engine component options for some of the engines when we created CMC2 and the 260/310 target. There was no way a stock 302HO was going to hit that, so we had to allow other parts. Allowing explorer parts made a lot of sense from a cost and availability perspective.

Note that on the table right now is allowing non camaro/firebird parts for the 305s for CMC2 as well. In other words, the GM side does get that same consideration.

I understand the timing of it.

But what we're witnessing now ... today is platforms mixing and matching blocks, pistons, heads, intakes, exhaust, computers, etc. to MAXIMIZE the TQ and HP curves, not just the peak number. These curves are far and away more aggressive than any stock OEM platform.

[mitchntx]

Also, it seems that purchasing an Engine Control Module that supports the above scenarios is allowable.

Why not just allow ECM alterations which can typically be done for a hundred bucks or so instead of spending precious racer dollars for a part to replace an already perfectly good part.

The LT1 motor is the ONLY CMC1/CMC2 package specifically prohibited from doing ANYTHING to alter the factory, OEM numbers. All other platforms require alterations and is specifically promoted by the series.

CMC has veered so far away from it's OEM roots, why stay mired in the politics?

[Al Fernandez]

Yep, the LT1 engine is the defacto standard, and the effort has been around ensuring all of the other platforms can match it. You should be glad you own an engine that doesnt need any help!

In the attached one chart is a bone stock LT1. The other is a 5.0 with every part the rules have allowed. The modified engine might be pretty far away from its stock numbers, but it sure is not far from any stock platform. I'd say they're pretty close.

PCM tuning has been suggested in the past, I'll happily submit it to the rest of the directors if you want and even keep my opinion to myself until the rest of the guys weigh in.

[RichardP]

In the attached one chart is a bone stock LT1. The other is a 5.0 with every part the rules have allowed.


It's interesting that the torque curves don't show up on the chart even though all the tags to data are there. Change a couple of letters in formula's of the curves that are referencing blank data and the torque curves show up.

It's also interesting how the torque curves make it seem like there is more of a difference between the two engines even thought the data is mathematically intertwined...


Richard P.

[Alien]

It would also be interesting to factor in the cars min weight into the curve as well.

Which data set is the LT1 and which is the 5.0?

[michaelmosty]

My guess is the LT1 is the one with more power.

[mitchntx]

My guess is the LT1 is the one with more power.

I was guessing just the opposite.

Funny how that worked out, eh?

[michaelmosty]

My guess is the LT1 is the one with more power.

I was guessing just the opposite.

Funny how that worked out, eh?
I figured it was the LT1 since it makes 286 TQ at 2,750 RPM and that is more TQ than alot of Mustangs make at their peak.

I am curious whose numbers these are (both LT1 and 5.0). I know the Mustang is not mine or Jeremiah's and I think Wade and Sam don't make that much TQ either.

[Alien]

Nope, Michael is probably right. So is Richard (if he's going where I think he's going). Mitch has a cat.

HP graphs look... ok.

TQ graphs look like the LT1 has the oh-noes!-advantage

TQ/WT graphs look like the pre-94 has the oh-noes!!!!! advantage, but 94+ vs LT1 are pretty darn close with the 94+ having an oh-so-slight advantage past ~3400rpm.

I'm sure we can come up with a graph that shows Todd having some advantage if we try hard enough.

[David Love AI27]

I'm sure we can come up with a graph that shows Todd having some advantage if we try hard enough.

Todd DOESN'T have a cat..

[Al Fernandez]

Funny how Michael and Mitch both assumed the higher curve belonged to an engine they dont have. :lol: racers

The green line is an LT1 (mine actually). The blue line is a CMC2 302. The graph didnt show torque but had other tags because I had more data in there from folks that havent cleared it being made public but are ok with it being used in private for rules evaluation.

Yep, that LT1 sure has a huge torque advantage below 3300rpm. How often are you there? I would also not pay too much attention to the LT1s sharp drop above 5500 as the operator was told the rev limiter is at 5700 and not to hit it.

Last point...the 302's peak is 257 while the LT1's peak is 260. With a little more timing on one or a little more restrictor on the other the peaks would match and then that difference between 4200 and 5200 gets even smaller. Check it out by adding 2 or 3 to every point on the 302's curve. The point is that the general shape of the curve in the RPM region we're interested in is pretty damn close. That 302 has not been able to mix and match and aftermarket allowed parts its way to a curve that is anywhere near dramatically better than an LT1, rather it has brought itself to pretty close to parity, at least in the 3500 to redline range, which is about right.

[David Love AI27]

It would also be interesting to factor in the cars min weight into the curve as well.


So.... if the allowable mods to the Fords make the platforms equal as far as performance, what about the weight difference?????? Shouldn't that be equal also????? :twisted: When the Chevy's were running up front 50 lbs was added. What about now with the top CMC2 cars being Fords? :roll:

[michaelmosty]

It would also be interesting to factor in the cars min weight into the curve as well.


So.... if the allowable mods to the Fords make the platforms equal as far as performance, what about the weight difference?????? Shouldn't that be equal also????? :twisted: When the Chevy's were running up front 50 lbs was added. What about now with the top CMC2 cars being Fords? :roll:
Do you honestly think the 79-04 Mustangs are equal to the 3rd + 4th gens and should all have the same weight?

[Alien]

I don't necessarily think the weights should be equal across the board, but at the same time I don't think anyone should base performance on solely the TQ curve alone (not saying that anyone is) without taking in other factors.

[David Love AI27]

It would also be interesting to factor in the cars min weight into the curve as well.


So.... if the allowable mods to the Fords make the platforms equal as far as performance, what about the weight difference?????? Shouldn't that be equal also????? :twisted: When the Chevy's were running up front 50 lbs was added. What about now with the top CMC2 cars being Fords? :roll:
Do you honestly think the 79-04 Mustangs are equal to the 3rd + 4th gens and should all have the same weight?

Heck, I don't know... Just startin' trouble.... and I thought you knew me better than that :P

HOWEVER... ON THE REGIONAL LEVEL... I do think weight should be added to consistant winners especially those who go start at the back and beat the entire class before T1 :twisted:

[mitchntx]

It would also be interesting to factor in the cars min weight into the curve as well.


So.... if the allowable mods to the Fords make the platforms equal as far as performance, what about the weight difference?????? Shouldn't that be equal also????? :twisted: When the Chevy's were running up front 50 lbs was added. What about now with the top CMC2 cars being Fords? :roll:
Do you honestly think the 79-04 Mustangs are equal to the 3rd + 4th gens and should all have the same weight?

Do you think the rules ought to spoon feed those who make poor choices?

[Crumpacker]

Something like that.
I could also see it like this:
The points for the race become a dropable zero with a 25 point (or 50 oint) penalty.
I don't think the individual should be able to keep their score for the race if they were under weight, but they should also have a penalty for the infraction in addition to the dropable zero.

In continuation of the droppable 0s vs. non droppable 0s vs. Points Penalty discussion in the "Points for Round 6 Thread"... ... ... how about this:

All penalties receive a 0, but all are droppable. -- hear me out -- Each infraction is assigned a points penalty based on it's severity, AND THIS POINTS PENALTY WILL BE LISTED IN THE RULEBOOK. Ex. you violate 7.2.2 (windshield banner/class designation), you get a 0 for the race and receive a 10pt penalty. It will be even easier to tabulate than 0s and DQs. Add a penalties column to the points spreadsheet and the penalties are assessed to your after-drops points total.

More severe infractions will have more severe penalties - Illegal subframe connector welds - 0 for the race plus a 30pt penalty. Blowing by a rescue crew at full tilt, 0 for the race plus a 100pt penalty. <-- This would hit your points total just like a non-droppable DQ, but also cost you a Drop.

As it stands there are only 3 outcomes of a rules violation; droppable 0, non-droppable 0 or no penalty. This give every illegal car a 0 for their illegal race, but also allows for variation in the severity of the penalties. It also satisfies the concern for people using droppable 0s to "test the waters" with an illegal car.

[mitchntx]

-- hear me out --

http://halshop.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/dividedbyzero2.jpg

[Crumpacker]

http://www.timemachinego.com/linkmachinego/images2/2007/endcat.jpg

[ShadowBolt]

Funny how Michael and Mitch both assumed the higher curve belonged to an engine they dont have. :lol: racers

The green line is an LT1 (mine actually). The blue line is a CMC2 302. The graph didnt show torque but had other tags because I had more data in there from folks that havent cleared it being made public but are ok with it being used in private for rules evaluation.

Yep, that LT1 sure has a huge torque advantage below 3300rpm. How often are you there? I would also not pay too much attention to the LT1s sharp drop above 5500 as the operator was told the rev limiter is at 5700 and not to hit it.

Last point...the 302's peak is 257 while the LT1's peak is 260. With a little more timing on one or a little more restrictor on the other the peaks would match and then that difference between 4200 and 5200 gets even smaller. Check it out by adding 2 or 3 to every point on the 302's curve. The point is that the general shape of the curve in the RPM region we're interested in is pretty damn close. That 302 has not been able to mix and match and aftermarket allowed parts its way to a curve that is anywhere near dramatically better than an LT1, rather it has brought itself to pretty close to parity, at least in the 3500 to redline range, which is about right.

Al, can you add my dyno for the 4.6 to this so we can see where it falls against the other two engines? I would like to see what a "poor choice" I made.


JJ

[michaelmosty]

It would also be interesting to factor in the cars min weight into the curve as well.


So.... if the allowable mods to the Fords make the platforms equal as far as performance, what about the weight difference?????? Shouldn't that be equal also????? :twisted: When the Chevy's were running up front 50 lbs was added. What about now with the top CMC2 cars being Fords? :roll:
Do you honestly think the 79-04 Mustangs are equal to the 3rd + 4th gens and should all have the same weight?

Do you think the rules ought to spoon feed those who make poor choices?
What do you mean by poor choices? Choose to race a Mustang? If this is your thinking then yes, the rules ought to spoon feed the Mustang drivers. It is the responsibility of the rules to make things equal.
If you were going in a different direction with the comment please ellaborate. 8)

[evarner]

If everyone picked the "EZ-Mode" the class will soon read: Camaro-Camaro-Challenge

Just sayin' 8) :lol:

[AllZWay]

I am not sure why anyone would choose to race a fairmont in the first place. :twisted:

[mitchntx]

It is the responsibility of the rules to make things equal.


So like welfare, government run health care, Stalinism, Communism and the like, the rules should penalize the haves to cater to the have-nots ...

I guess the low car counts reflects a "rules recession" of sorts ...

8)

[Crumpacker]

Do you think the rules ought to spoon feed those who make poor choices?
It is the responsibility of the rules to make things equal.


Using the rulebook to create a competitive class out of different chassis is nothing new...

http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af110/samcrumpacker/untitled.jpg

[gt40]

The CONCEPT for the series should define the rulebook, not the other way around.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Camaro-Mustang Challenge is all about racing Muatangs and Camaros. If something isn't done to establish parity between the two marques, it'll just be the Camaro-Camaro challenge, as Varner so aptly put it.

It's not about being fair and letting the superior car win. It's about establishing parity so on any given weekend, any well-driven car that's prepped to the maximum under the rules has a good chance of winning.

We've seen what happens when parity isn't maintained by the sanctioning body -- It's what killed CanAm. Porsche decided to dominate the series by dumping a lot of cash into their CanAm effort and dominated to the point where other teams moved on to other series where they had a ghost of a chance of winning.

Personally, I like the way the SCCA does things in World Challenge -- If you win, your minimum weight gets raised until you stop winning. That TOTALLY changes the nature of the series, from the teams perspective. from the fan's perspective, it means lots of close racing with no one team dominating the season.

[mitchntx]

You guys are soooooooooo easy ....

http://www.sillycats.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/irs-laughing-cat.jpg

[michaelmosty]

Very funny Mitch.
http://www.graphicsfactory.com/clip-art/image_files/image/5/1325325-kid-53108-020.gif

[mitchntx]

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/440872/2/istockphoto_440872-hook-line-and-sinker.jpg

[jeffburch]

<yawn>

jb

[mitchntx]

Can I get this ground effects package legalized?

http://www.lsxtv.com/files/2010/10/camaro-3.jpg

http://www.lsxtv.com/files/2010/10/camaro-5.jpg

[michaelmosty]

Is that Glenn's new car?

[Fbody383]

Is that Glenn's new car? Nah, bodywork is too nice.

[mitchntx]

Is that Glenn's new car? Nah, bodywork is too nice.

Actually, it is. We call it Cam-aero.

[RichardP]

Is that Glenn's new car? Nah, bodywork is too nice.


Glenn's original race car looked nice before he drove it the first weekend... :D


Richard P.

[mitchntx]

Is that Glenn's new car? Nah, bodywork is too nice.


Glenn's original race car looked nice before he drove it the first weekend... :D


Richard P.

Yeah, Lebbe hit him that weekend too.

Is a pattern emerging?

[Rob Liebbe]

Is that Glenn's new car? Nah, bodywork is too nice.


Glenn's original race car looked nice before he drove it the first weekend... :D


Richard P.

Yeah, Lebbe hit him that weekend too.

Is a pattern emerging?

I did not hit Glenn in that crash, my ex-partner was involved in that 4-car crash. I wasn't even at the track at the time.

[Fbody383]

Is that Glenn's new car? Nah, bodywork is too nice.


Glenn's original race car looked nice before he drove it the first weekend... :D


Richard P.

Yeah, Lebbe hit him that weekend too.

Is a pattern emerging?

I did not hit Glenn in that crash, my ex-partner was involved in that 4-car crash. I wasn't even at the track at the time. Sure... and Oswald was the lone gunman.

[cjlmlml]

Can I get this ground effects package legalized?





Yes, contact the South Beach F body Rainbow association.