PDA

View Full Version : CMC Mustang guys - inside please!



GlennCMC70
12-09-2011, 09:07 PM
I has been pointed out to me that some of the Mustang guys may be running a non-legal part on their CMC cars. I for one have not seen the part in question on any of our CMC cars. If I had, this would have come up sooner.
This is what I was told some folks have been running:
http://www.maximummotorsports.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=513

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/store/images/rear_susp/MMSM-1.jpg

If you have this part or anything like this for rear upper shock attachment, please remove it before the 2012 season. I will be looking for this part at the first event of 2012 and each event thereafter. And just so we are all clear, I have consulted the other Regional Directors and the National Director before I made this post. All the Directors that took the time to respond to the email sent to all CMC Directors are in agreement that this part is not legal.
If you are not clear on this (or clear on why it is not legal), please get with me over the phone, in person, or via email. DQ's will be handed out for this. Please don't make me be the bad guy.

David Love AI27
12-09-2011, 09:13 PM
please don't make me be the bad guy.

too late!!!

jeremiahkellam
12-09-2011, 10:00 PM
Bushing material is unresticted! Yall are full of shit!! Have fun in 2012!!

GlennCMC70
12-09-2011, 11:57 PM
If you want to replace the bushings w/ what ever you want, that is fine. Moving the mounting point (up or down) is not allowed.
In this instance, the pivot point of the shock in the OEM set-up is at the plane of the sheetmetal chassis. By moving this pivot point, you have changed the geometery. I wanted to do something similar back in 2006 that didn't involve drilling holes and used the OEM hole as the mount and was not allowed to.

A similar issue is at hand w/ the front of a 4th gen. I rerquired to have a $100+ mount (upper shock pin) custom built to mount non-OEM shocks in the OEM hole on top. I could build a mount w/ $10 parts from the local dirt track shop, but was told the pivot point of the shock would be lowered thus not keeping the OEM geometry. This is not a new interpretation of the rule. I've been fighting this for a number of years.

But if that is not good enough, here is the rule where it is clearly stated.

7.33.8 Any non-remote reservoir shock absorbers, of any origin, that are readily available to the public from a retail source for less than $800 a pair may be used provided they attach to the OEM stock unmodified mounting points and do not alter the stock geometry, with the exceptions outlined in 7.33.10 below.

edrock96GT
12-10-2011, 09:41 AM
...and if you have to get rid of a set, I'll take it. :D

ShadowBolt
12-10-2011, 10:41 AM
I has been pointed out to me that some of the Mustang guys may be running a non-legal part on their CMC cars. I for one have not seen the part in question on any of our CMC cars. If I had, this would have come up sooner.
This is what I was told some folks have been running:
http://www.maximummotorsports.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=513

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/store/images/rear_susp/MMSM-1.jpg

If you have this part or anything like this for rear upper shock attachment, please remove it before the 2012 season. I will be looking for this part at the first event of 2012 and each event thereafter. And just so we are all clear, I have consulted the other Regional Directors and the National Director before I made this post. All Directors are in agreement that this part is not legal.
If you are not clear on this (or clear on why it is not legal), please get with me over the phone, in person, or via email. DQ's will be handed out for this. Please don't make me be the bad guy.


Why are we even talking about this? I was going to install these in the off season to get more travel. Why did this come up now?

JJ

jdlingle
12-10-2011, 11:28 AM
I was looking at these as well. Glad I didnt pull the trigger. I thought they fell under the bushing material rule.

GlennCMC70
12-10-2011, 11:37 AM
Why are we even talking about this? I was going to install these in the off season to get more travel. Why did this come up now?

JJ

It was pointed out to me over the phone a couple days ago.
I wouldn't matter if it came up now, six months from now, or six months ago, the end result would have been the same - not legal. This interpretation was given to me many years ago, so the ruling is not a new one although I did consult w/ the Directors this week to be sure it is still the correct interpretation. Not really the point since the rule has been the same since I started in CMC.
I don't know who has these as that was not part of the info provided. I'm glad you didn't install them yet.

Jerry - to address your shock length problem.... The 3rd/4th gen guys use a shock that is 2" shorter than OEM in the rear. I think a 7" is the stock stroke and we use a 5". Something to consider.

edrock96GT
12-10-2011, 01:06 PM
That does present a problem for the guys that have installed these already.

From the MM website: "and installation of this shock mount is not easily reversible".

GlennCMC70
12-10-2011, 01:17 PM
That does present a problem for the guys that have installed these already.

From the MM website: "and installation of this shock mount is not easily reversible".

I possibly does. This would only be an issue if we allowed these at one time and then changed the rule. Since these have never been allowed (read as - the rule has been the same for many years), the problem is not in the lap of the Directors.
If a fix needs to be done, work w/ the Directors if you are unsure of the legality of the repair.

Fbody383
12-10-2011, 01:36 PM
Bushing material is unresticted! It is; does the MM mount provide an equivalent to OEM attachment location and geometry?

It's fine not to like the rule, but do folks want the mount for just the solid mounting or also a potential suspension improvement?

jeremiahkellam
12-10-2011, 02:06 PM
This would only be an issue if we allowed these at one time and then changed the rule. Since these have never been allowed (read as - the rule has been the same for many years.

Those mounts have been on my car for 2 seasons! They are there in plain sight. That means they made it through every one of your regional "inspections" and 2 pre and post race national inspections. And it has never once come up. Now, because someone else has viewed them as outside of the rule set, you've jumped on board with it! Could it be viewed as a geometrical advantage?? Sure!! Some people even think Glenn is a nice person. But we are talking about moving the "bushing" up maybe 1/2" at the most, how much of an advantage could that be on a live axle car and the shock mounts straight up and down??? It couldnt be anymore of an advantage than aloowing the Poor Mans 3 link....

If you wont tell us who told you about it, then I would like to know who else is running these mounts, because I know I'm the only one in Texas (so far...). And given the fact that you decided to spout off here in the Texas forums and not post an official National Tech Bulliten leads me to believe that whoever did tell you about it, knows as little as you do and is as full of excuses as you are!

In response to David's question, the reason I put them on was that if I am running these high dollar "cheater shocks", I wanted the shocks to work as intended, and not be hampered by a piece rubber that could change the dampening performance of the shock.

jdlingle
12-10-2011, 02:36 PM
From the MM website:

"MM Racing Rear Upper Shock Mount, Bilstein, 1979-2004, non IRS

Securely mounts your shock top with a spherical bearing. Eliminates the vertical deflection of any rubber, and the spherical bearing’s freedom of movement eliminates side loading on the shock shaft. This helps the shock perform at it’s peak. Our mount performs the same as a rod end on the end of the shock, but does not reduce precious bump travel because of trying to fit a rod end under the shock tower. These can be used with or without a coil-over system. Because there is increased noise transmitted into the passenger compartment, and installation of the shock mount is not easily reversible, this product is recommended only for race cars. Not for use with IRS due to reduction in droop travel."

Would the same product be legal if it was under the shock tower or is the added height what DQ's them?

I had spoken with Jeremiah about these when I was first starting my build after seeing them on his car (which was after he won Nationals). I had also spoken with two other people about them and was never under the impression that there was anything wrong with these. For once being broke worked to my advantage because these would have been on the car if I had the money. The stock rubber mount on the rear shock is very flimsy.

rpoz27
12-10-2011, 05:20 PM
...and if you have to get rid of a set, I'll take it. :D

I, yes this is Matt, was selling mine to Jeremy for $100....if this rule stands, you can buy them. Should be off the car in about 3 weeks when the new shocks arrive. I am also selling the bilsteins and coil over kit too....no springs....no problem for AI.

GlennCMC70
12-11-2011, 02:01 AM
There is no "if this rule stands" to it. The rule has been interpreted to me the same way since before I have been trying to do what you guys did (get rid of the rubber).
They have never been legal. Not as long as I have been in CMC.
I asked before I modded my car (2006 or earlier) and you guys added it w/out asking.

GlennCMC70
12-11-2011, 02:49 AM
Those mounts have been on my car for 2 seasons! They are there in plain sight. That means they made it through every one of your regional "inspections" and 2 pre and post race national inspections. And it has never once come up.
Not the first time someone has been illegal for a very long time and was caught at some point and penalized for it. I recall subframe connectors being delt w/ in a much more harsh manner. Was the violation invallid due the time that has passed w/ the car illegallay modified? No.


Now, because someone else has viewed them as outside of the rule set, you've jumped on board with it!
I've not jumped on board w/ anything. I have known for a number of years this was not legal. I verified w/ the other Directors to ensure I didn't miss a rule change or interpretation and all agreed that these are not legal and have never been before I made this post. So even if I was good w/ them being on the cars, they would still be illegal.



Could it be viewed as a geometrical advantage?? Sure!! Some people even think Glenn is a nice person. But we are talking about moving the "bushing" up maybe 1/2" at the most, how much of an advantage could that be on a live axle car and the shock mounts straight up and down??? It couldnt be anymore of an advantage than aloowing the Poor Mans 3 link....
How much in violation of a rule does one need to be to order to be illegal? That rule was in place the day you built your car. It reads pretty clear to me. Don't agree? Use this golden opertunity to appeal to the National Office and have me made to look a fool. Do I agree w/ you that we should be allowed to do this? Sure. I want to do it to mine. But I will also enforce the rules no matter my personal feelings of them.


If you wont tell us who told you about it, then I would like to know who else is running these mounts, because I know I'm the only one in Texas (so far...). And given the fact that you decided to spout off here in the Texas forums and not post an official National Tech Bulliten leads me to believe that whoever did tell you about it, knows as little as you do and is as full of excuses as you are!

I'll not tell you who told me and as far as anyone (other than me) knew, nobody really had these on thier car based on my original post. You first post indicated to me the info given to me was correct. All I was told was some guys are running them. It was a result of said person telling me of them on his car and me questioning the legality of them. That resulted in "there are lots of guys w/ them". So as of now, I know of 2. You could have kept your mouth shut and just removed them. Instead of accepting a "leason learned" the easy way (w/out a DQ), your busting my balls cause I'm the one delivering the bad news.
So feel free to think I have spouted off. Wait for the Tech Bulliten - that will never be posted since the rule is very clear and no changes have been made. Appeal to the other Regional Directors, the National Directors, the NASA HQ office only to learn that I am correct. And then learn that you have ZERO facts correct and to not have the sack to come back in here and admit that you were infact the one who is wrong. Have you never been wrong in your whole life? Is it possible this is another one of those times?


I am 100% convinced that there will always be someone (likely more than one) in this group who will only be happy if they are allowed to race in CMC the way they understand the rules. I will never be able to come in here and inform folks that there are rules being violated and folks need to come into compliance w/out getting this treatment. This childish behavior is absurd. I go out of my way to correct folks who are in violation only to have them act as if I DQ'ed them on the spot w/ no appeal available. Perhaps that is the way I'll do it from now on. I get treated like dirt when I'm nice about it, I'll get treated like dirt when I'm unfair about it. Bunch of F'ing dramma queens.

David Love AI27
12-11-2011, 04:42 PM
Not the first time someone has been illegal for a very long time and was caught at some point and penalized for it.

Something MUST be wrong with the way cars are being checked... Seems like this happens alot...

GlennCMC70
12-11-2011, 07:09 PM
Something MUST be wrong with the way cars are being checked... Seems like this happens alot...

I offer that as much blame can be placed on me for missing non-legal parts as can be placed on folks who fail to read the rules. This rule (and many like it) are pretty clear. Not much to "read into" or "gray area" in this one.

When you guys are ready to present your cars for inspection Friday morning and stay at impound post race right up to grid time for the next race and well into the evening after the track goes cold Sat and Sun, then hold me liable for missing these items. This method would likely result in more folks being unhappy then what we have now w/ those who seem to be unable to handle being told thier car has illegal parts/mod's on it. I don't recall hearing of any other place to race that would post on the local class forum a notice like this one, or a one-on-one conversation requesting the car to be made legal prior to the next event while not issueing a DQ on the spot. We all want 100% legal cars to show up - we have had this conversation just a couple years ago and it was clear that as a group we wanted legal cars. But none of us are willing to do what it takes to ensure this. We don't want to spend hours in impound, we don't want to show up a day earlier, we don't want to "rat out" our friends. We wanted folks DQ'ed for infractions. What we do is bitch about anything a Director does to prevent having to do all that. It is my fault I pointed out the MM rear shock mounts are not legal, and not JK's for installing them? It's my fault I didn't sit down a have "read the rules to my CMC racers hour" at each event. I'm pretty sure we have a much more "legal" group of cars than we have ever had. Much better than those days of CMC Directors w/ illegal parts and the fix was to sign your logbook stating you were OK to run them as well, but only doing so once they were caught.


So yes, there is an issue w/ the way cars are being checked. We are guys who race for fun, w/ folks who run the series for fun. So far this year about 3 folks have done a great job at trying to make this zero fun for me.

At this point, I've said all I plan on saying. You want to talk about this with me, call me or talk w/ me at MSR-H in 2012.

ShadowBolt
12-11-2011, 07:36 PM
So yes, there is an issue w/ the way cars are being checked. We are guys who race for fun, w/ folks who run the series for fun. So far this year about 3 folks have done a great job at trying to make this zero fun for me.

At this point, I've said all I plan on saying. You want to talk about this with me, call me or talk w/ me at MSR-H in 2012.

I'm sorry Glenn for being one of the three A-Holes. Just to be clear I don't have a problem with this. Notice any more post from me on the subject? I just wanted to know who told/asked you about them because I was looking into them. I don't have a dog in this fight.


JJ

Rob Liebbe
12-11-2011, 08:10 PM
From the Maximum Motorsports Catalog:

Maximum Motorsports 1994-04 Mustang Caster Camber Plates, black powdercoat finish. MM 4-bolt caster/camber plates provide independent adjustment of camber and caster.

Benefits

Aids proper front alignment, improves performance.
Lowered Mustangs can be aligned to factory specifications.
Provides a wider range of camber adjustment than is otherwise possible.
Negative camber may be increased for competition.
Provides caster adjustment (otherwise not adjustable).
Allows greatly increasing caster for improved straight-line stability and cornering ability.
Suitable for coil-over conversion.
Allows increasing bump travel.
Caster and camber are easily adjusted at the top of the strut tower.
Double-adjustable. Camber is adjustable without affecting caster.
Spherical bearing mount eliminates deflection and precisely locates the strut shaft, while still allowing the articulation required for steering and suspension movement.
Improves steering response and dynamic alignment stability, by eliminating deflection allowed by the stock rubber-bushed upper strut mount.
Bolts on. Drilling of one hole in each strut tower is required.

Are these caster/camber plates going to be illegal now too? These, or other similar units, have been are more cars than you can imagine including my old one and likely the new one. The caster/camber plates allow for an adjustment beyond "stock" for just about every possible strut top geometry including shock/strut travel (increased bump travel from the catalog description). Seems like some thought is in order on the rear shock mount as the front strut mount is suscept to the same interpretation and nobody would make the argument that the front strut caster/camber plates are illegal and should be removed.

ShadowBolt
12-11-2011, 08:16 PM
From the Maximum Motorsports Catalog:

Maximum Motorsports 1994-04 Mustang Caster Camber Plates, black powdercoat finish. MM 4-bolt caster/camber plates provide independent adjustment of camber and caster.

Benefits

Aids proper front alignment, improves performance.
Lowered Mustangs can be aligned to factory specifications.
Provides a wider range of camber adjustment than is otherwise possible.
Negative camber may be increased for competition.
Provides caster adjustment (otherwise not adjustable).
Allows greatly increasing caster for improved straight-line stability and cornering ability.
Suitable for coil-over conversion.
Allows increasing bump travel.
Caster and camber are easily adjusted at the top of the strut tower.
Double-adjustable. Camber is adjustable without affecting caster.
Spherical bearing mount eliminates deflection and precisely locates the strut shaft, while still allowing the articulation required for steering and suspension movement.
Improves steering response and dynamic alignment stability, by eliminating deflection allowed by the stock rubber-bushed upper strut mount.
Bolts on. Drilling of one hole in each strut tower is required.

Are these caster/camber plates going to be illegal now too? These, or other similar units, have been are more cars than you can imagine including my old one and likely the new one. The caster/camber plates allow for an adjustment beyond "stock" for just about every possible strut top geometry including shock/strut travel (increased bump travel from the catalog description). Seems like some thought is in order on the rear shock mount as the front strut mount is suscept to the same interpretation and nobody would make the argument that the front strut caster/camber plates are illegal and should be removed.

If I remember the rules talk about the front CC plates being okay but nothing about anything for the rears.

JJ

GlennCMC70
12-11-2011, 09:02 PM
I'm sorry Glenn for being one of the three A-Holes. Just to be clear I don't have a problem with this. Notice any more post from me on the subject? I just wanted to know who told/asked you about them because I was looking into them. I don't have a dog in this fight.


JJ

Thanks Jerry. I am not upset over that issue anymore, but I did make this more "not fun" there for a while. The bad comes w/ the good.

David Love AI27
12-11-2011, 10:12 PM
This method would likely result in more folks being unhappy then what we have now w/ those who seem to be unable to handle being told thier car has illegal parts/mod's on it.

I don't mind anyone pointing out any illegal parts on my car but it bothers me that slight modifications are subject to interpetation without regard to intention. for example if I beef up my panhard bar bracket to prevent it from constantly being ripped off of the frame, does it enhance the performance?

I am more displeased with changes in the rules that don't reflect the feelings of the drivers.



we don't want to "rat out" our friends.

If Gary points out something illegal on my car and I don't do anything about it, I fully expect him to file a protest in accordance with the CCR... not ratting someone out if you discuss it with them in advance.



So yes, there is an issue w/ the way cars are being checked. We are guys who race for fun, w/ folks who run the series for fun. So far this year about 3 folks have done a great job at trying to make this zero fun for me.


I have been president of a Girls Softball League, president and officer of two Lions Clubs and an Elder of my church.... I volunteered for those positions and none of them were "fun", but I took pride in listening to all concerned, made decisions based on fairness and took pride in what I accomplished... If you only have 3 people giving you crap then you're pretty lucky...

BlueFirePony
12-11-2011, 10:14 PM
... I am not upset over that issue anymore, but I did make this more "not fun" there for a while. The bad comes w/ the good.
Glenn, I for one appreciate the time you have put in on this and it really sucks that you have to take any bad at all..same goes to Dave, Al, Todd, and certainly all the volunteers in NASA. Forget the cliche of it being a thankless job...it shouldn't be. We would not have the luxury to bitch if it wasn't for your time and talent.

UNDERSTANDING (i.e. asking for clarification if not 100% clear) and Playing within the rules is ALWAYS the responsibility of the sportsman, not the official!

Now, where's that post about the stupid Toyo contingency...is that a rule yet or do I still have time to bitch ;)

jdlingle
12-11-2011, 11:06 PM
I'm sorry Glenn for being one of the three A-Holes. Just to be clear I don't have a problem with this. Notice any more post from me on the subject? I just wanted to know who told/asked you about them because I was looking into them. I don't have a dog in this fight.


JJ

Im hoping Im not being considered an "a-hole" or a "drama queen" for posting what I knew about these on here. Not gonna lose any sleep over it mind you but it is a discussion forum so I was discussing what I had been told about them to try and put the info out there.

Anyway, just letting you know it wasnt my intent to piss anyone off if I did.

David Love AI27
12-11-2011, 11:13 PM
reason: Hit post before i was done typing

rookie

jdlingle
12-11-2011, 11:17 PM
rookie

of the year! :p

BlueFirePony
12-11-2011, 11:23 PM
of the year! :p
Nothin' but net.

kbrewmr2
12-12-2011, 11:22 AM
@ Libbe - there are alot of parts you guys are explicitly allowed to change that increase performance, right? This rear shock mount area just isn't want of them it seems.

no dog in the fight, just interested in different rules type philosophies and learning from 'em
- KB

evarner
12-12-2011, 03:46 PM
(makes a motion with my left hand - starting at the tip of my right hand fingers...then with one motion (as to take a measurement) go upwards almost to the elbow)
<tic>

Al Fernandez
12-12-2011, 05:03 PM
Glenn is right, the fact that these are not allowed is not new. Drivers have asked for them on and off since I started CMC. I myself bugged Tony G when I started about similar options circa 2001. Caster/camber plates bring many of the same benefits, but they bring the most important one: allowing the rance of alignment settings necessary to make tire wear decent. Rear upper mounts do nothing other than drop lap times.

Thank you Glenn for your help in ensuring the Texas drivers understand the rules and stick to them.

"Ratting out your friends" is an important phylosophical problem we all face in ammateur racing. I would hope all of you would have the confience in your officials to tell them your the honest truth whenever you find something wrong or simply something you think isnt quite right. Its not supposed to be the responsibility of a driver to confront another driver about legality. Thats what officials get paid so much to do. :) Keeping those conversations confidential is necessary, so asking Glenn who brought this particular deal to his attention isnt (IMHO) constructive.

Adam Ginsberg
12-13-2011, 01:51 AM
All Directors are in agreement that this part is not legal.

It never ceases to amaze me how often Glenn decides to "speak for all the directors", and how often he gets it wrong.

Glenn is incorrect.

BryanL
12-13-2011, 09:57 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how often Glenn decides to "speak for all the directors", and how often he gets it wrong.

Glenn is incorrect.
So Al is wrong too about this part being illegal? Are there other directors that think its legal other than you?

ShadowBolt
12-13-2011, 10:33 AM
Glenn is right, the fact that these are not allowed is not new. Drivers have asked for them on and off since I started CMC. I myself bugged Tony G when I started about similar options circa 2001. Caster/camber plates bring many of the same benefits, but they bring the most important one: allowing the rance of alignment settings necessary to make tire wear decent. Rear upper mounts do nothing other than drop lap times.

Thank you Glenn for your help in ensuring the Texas drivers understand the rules and stick to them.

"Ratting out your friends" is an important phylosophical problem we all face in ammateur racing. I would hope all of you would have the confience in your officials to tell them your the honest truth whenever you find something wrong or simply something you think isnt quite right. Its not supposed to be the responsibility of a driver to confront another driver about legality. Thats what officials get paid so much to do. :) Keeping those conversations confidential is necessary, so asking Glenn who brought this particular deal to his attention isnt (IMHO) constructive.

"Rear upper mounts do nothing other than drop lap times."

So now I know why JK kicked my ass. Just kidding! I can't see these making that much difference. Can you back up this claim Al? As I said I don't really care but as they say on Corner Carvers........do you have any tech to support this?

JJ

Al Fernandez
12-13-2011, 12:19 PM
Jerry, I certainly agree that they wont make much of a difference. Racing is not about a few changes that drop seconds, its about many of changes that drop tenths. The entire purpose of those rear mounts is to eliminate the rubber bushing so that the tire's motion is more directly controlled by the shock (as opposed to by the shock and the flexing of the rubber). Rubber bushings are in effect part shock and part spring. Spherical bearings are neither. This is all great from the point of view of allowing the driver to extract more out of the car. They dont reduce the cost to make your car "top shelf". They dont make the car any safer in an impact. They dont enable closer and more competitive racing. If they were legal all the fast guys would get 'em and some of the guys on a budget would just chalk them up as another reason why they're in the "have not" camp.

jeremiahkellam
12-13-2011, 12:59 PM
I thought you knew Jerry, they not only provide a stable mounting point for the shocks, butbthey also double as an active KERS and DRS system....

But down to business. Im ok with the idea that these mounts are deamed illegal. But on what basis? Is it the modified geometry, modified shock tower, or both?

You cant really say that the spherical Bearing is what makes it illegal... So long as it is mounted without modifying the shock tower and the effective mounting point is oem equivilant, it would be fine, right?

Crumpacker
12-13-2011, 01:27 PM
Im ok with the idea that these mounts are deamed illegal. But on what basis? Is it the modified geometry, modified shock tower, or both?

You cant really say that the spherical Bearing is what makes it illegal... So long as it is mounted without modifying the shock tower and the effective mounting point is oem equivilant, it would be fine, right?

That is exactly what I'm getting out of this.

With bushing material unrestricted - the spherical bearing is okay (just like the poor man's 3-link). I think it's the modified mounting point that's causing issues.


-your friendly rubber bushing, stock 4-link guy.

Al Fernandez
12-13-2011, 02:02 PM
Bushing material is indeed unrestricted, but in this case we're not just removing a rubber bushing and replacing it with a bushing made of some other material or combination of materials. Installing the part entails drilling four mounting holes and (potentially, depending on the car) enlarging the OE hole for the shock shaft. Then you bolt the bearing carrier onto the tower. That is what allows the substitute bushing to mount, and it is (according to MM, without welding) a permanent modification. Rule 7.33.8 states shocks must mount to the OEM stock unmodified mounting point and does not alter the stock geometry. 7.33.10 defines an exception to 7.33.8 for methods by which adjustment to front caster and camber can be made (plates, eccentrics, etc.)

All of the GM guys have the same exact rear upper shock mount style (bayonet with a rubber bushing). This issue also affects 4th gen front upper shock mounts, front torque arm mounts, and probably a couple of others I'm not remembering off the top of my head.

Any time you're allowed to cut/weld/permanently modify something in the suspension its specifically allowed. Modifying the upper shock mount point and relocating the pivot point is pretty clearly not allowed.

ShadowBolt
12-13-2011, 04:56 PM
Jerry, I certainly agree that they wont make much of a difference. Racing is not about a few changes that drop seconds, its about many of changes that drop tenths. The entire purpose of those rear mounts is to eliminate the rubber bushing so that the tire's motion is more directly controlled by the shock (as opposed to by the shock and the flexing of the rubber). Rubber bushings are in effect part shock and part spring. Spherical bearings are neither. This is all great from the point of view of allowing the driver to extract more out of the car. They dont reduce the cost to make your car "top shelf". They dont make the car any safer in an impact. They dont enable closer and more competitive racing. If they were legal all the fast guys would get 'em and some of the guys on a budget would just chalk them up as another reason why they're in the "have not" camp.

Thanks Al,

I just wondered if they make even a tenth difference. I know what you mean about a little here and a little there but I was wondering how much these would help. I assumed a lot of work for very little difference. Maybe it would be worth doing if the rules allowed it.

JJ

GlennCMC70
12-13-2011, 05:25 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how often Glenn decides to "speak for all the directors", and how often he gets it wrong.

Glenn is incorrect.

I'll once again speak for Adam.
Adam is pointing out that not all Directors responded to the group email questioning this parts legality. I gave what I felt was plenty of time for all Directors to respond. Once Al (the National Director if you all forgot) responded and it reflected all the the responces from those Direcotrs who decided to respond, I felt it was OK for me to make this post.
So.... did all Directors respond? No. I thought a lack of responce was due to a lack of difference in opinion.
Does Adam think these are legal? I hope not and assume he agree's they are illegal. As of today Adam has still not responded to the email sent to all Directors. Yet he had time to come in here and make a comment.
So take Adam's comments w/ a grain of salt and move on.
I'll edit my responce quoted above so it is more accurate.

michaelmosty
12-13-2011, 06:05 PM
Chick fights rule!!!

Rob Liebbe
12-13-2011, 06:09 PM
Chick fights rule!!!

We need better looking chicks.

GlennCMC70
12-13-2011, 06:16 PM
I'll address a few comments from various posts above.
Is this mount legal? No.
Does it drop lap times? To what degree? If they didn't in any measurable way, would anyone spend the money on them? Would MM make them? Yes, they do contribute to a lower lap time. Why? It lets the shock do all the work and removes the OEM rubber bushing from the equation.
Can you use a spherical bearing? Sure, if you can find a way to make it work w/ the OEM hole and not bend the top of the shock shaft off. The term "bushing material is open" does not imply you can modify the mount to build whatever you want, to include making the hole bigger. In that case, I would cut off the end of my torque arm and replace it w/ a 1/2" steel rod and remove my rubber bushing from my torque arm mount and replace it w/ a spherical bearing. Would it drop lap times? Possibly, but better yet, it would help me avoid rear wheel hop and allow me to be more consistent. I may not drop the track record, but I'll run closer to it every lap than I did before.

So why are they illegal? As JK pointed out - it is the modified mounting point and what is interpreted as a "change in geometry". The shock pivots on this upper mount as the car moves up and down. By moving the pivot point the geometry has changed. I understand it is only 1/2". But w/ no limit in place of how far we could move it, folks would be moving it as much as they wanted. Since we don't want to go down that road, we keep the OEM mounting as a requirement.
I had to spend about $100 per shock to replicate the OEM mounting for my shocks. They come in just under the $800 price limit since all parts required to mount the shock in the OEM place are required to be included and under the $800 per pair limit. My shock itself is only $160 from Day Motorsports. Now, I have tried many times to allow us to use a much cheaper method of mounting and have the rule change that the OEM hole must be used but the mounting hardware can be open. I could build my mounts for $10 per shock from parts found at the local dirt track shop.


I also want to point out another issue (not really an issue). The Fox/SN-95/SN-9/3rd gens all use an aftermarket caster/camber plate. All these plates remove all the upper rubber bushing that the OEM mount had. In its place there is a spherical bearing. One that is also relocated higher (3rd gens for sure) thus resulting in an altered geometry. This is a place where the non-4th gen car have a leg up. I have to use my OEM upper rubber mount w/ all its deflecting glory in the OEM position on the car. And I have to have a custom made upper shock pin to mount the shock to the rubber. I could just remove it and bolt a shock clevis to the upper A arm mounting plate and be like everyone else who gets to use a spherical bearing as an upper bushing who's material is unrestricted. But the rules prevent this. Do I feel it is unfair to the 4th gen? Sure. But I follow the rules and deal w/ the diffences.

So this is not a new idea. I didn't come up w/ it for sure. And in years past I know of a Cali racer who I will not mention did what I wanted to do under the "bushing material is unrestricted" mindset and was DQ'ed and removed as a Director. This has all been tried before and was shot down. It wasn't legal then, and it isn't legal now.

I also want to be very clear that not one person name dropped anyones name to me over the phone last week. All I was told was "lots of guys use them, that is why I have them". So when I made my post, I knew of 1 person for sure. Now I know of 2. And I have my eye on a 3rd. This is a perfect example of "monkey see, monkey do". Not one of you questioned the legality of these before installing them. Some of you had money ready to spend for a set. So a totalof 5-6 guys were either illegal or were going to be by 2012. When you look to mod the car or upgrade, take a moment to rear the rules and see if the part in question is legal, in a gray area, or if your allowed to do more than what you think. Call a Director. Bounce an email. Tell me your too proud to read the rules and you want me to do it for you. Anything other than assume you can cause Joe Blow did.

This could have easily turned into a rubber stamp DQ day at some point in 2012 if/when these would have been noticed.

jdlingle
12-13-2011, 06:44 PM
We need better looking chicks.
Yes we do!:D

AllZWay
12-13-2011, 06:48 PM
We need better looking chicks.

Amen... :)

Hood
12-20-2011, 04:12 AM
Anybody heard of Delrin? Just a thought...