Why can't a Mustang run a torque arm?

[GlennCMC70]

Do the mustangs still have the same durability problem when NOT running the poor mans three link? If not then it's a tough one.

I see it similar to how I like to give Glenn sh!t when he talks about the 4th gens being so hard to get to min weight. I like to suggest he put in a T5. Would it make it easier to make weight? Yes. Is there a tradeoff in durability? Yes.

Gary got it right w/ this post.

[GlennCMC70]

If Camaro-Mustang Challenge fornicates itself into a smorgasboard of parts allowed where racers can cherry-pick and cross-platform choose parts from a list, the only difference between the race cars will be the decals.

I guess it needs to be clear if this is REALLY Camaro-Mustang Challenge or AI Light.

Mitch got right as well.

May as well spec a tube chassis from a limited list of builders and allow the engine/trans of ones liking.
I have been wanting to put on paper a series that does this. All the CMC rules and limits w/ one exception - run this tube chassis. Something like a dirt Modified chassis.

Hey - just saw Gary's tube chassis comment. Me and Al have talked about this several times. Perhaps an evolution of CMC will result in Camaro Mustang Stockcar. CMS?

[Rob Liebbe]

How about just letting the Mustangs really beef up the rear suspension lower and upper pickup points? I know there are kits available and they are legal. But did we name any certain ones or are we at the point that as long as the bolts go through the original sheetmetal we can allow gusseting, doubler plates, etc.

[Alien]

Beef me up Scotty!

Ford cars are additionally allowed to completely weld the rear upper control arm body attachment points within the following restrictions:
1. The attachment point must remain in the OEM Stock location and maintain the same geometry.
2. All welding of the existing material must be within 10” of the centerline of the mounting point hole.

Is that enough? It says welding of "existing material", so that almost sounds like no gusseting etc is allowed. I wonder if the ULA should be also have the words that the LCA has subsituting 10" for 12"...

2. All additional reinforcement material or welding of existing material must be within 12" of the center of the mounting point.

This obviously won't help in Jerry's case since it seems the damage is done, but should help prevent it from happening to the other side.

[mitchntx]

cms?

gmf

[MHISSTC]

May as well spec a tube chassis from a limited list of builders and allow the engine/trans of ones liking. I have been wanting to put on paper a series that does this. All the CMC rules and limits w/ one exception - run this tube chassis. Something like a dirt Modified chassis.

Hey - just saw Gary's tube chassis comment. Me and Al have talked about this several times. Perhaps an evolution of CMC will result in Camaro Mustang Stockcar. CMS?

This is exactly what Chuck Taylor and crew are coming up with in the ARRS (American Road Race Series) cars in RM Region. They are taking their time to build it right. Check out the link.

http://www.arrs.us/

[MHISSTC]

...if there is no performace gain, but the win is chassis longevity, it could get approved. If the car gets faster (likely since the aftermarket wouldn't sell any otherwise), but can be offset w/ a higher minimum weight, it could get approved. Perhaps we could even state that the addition of a TA will result in an increased minimum weight. So you could run w/ or w/out. Of course, there is always a possibility that you would have to run a 235 tire.

While I understand the "can of worms" and "slippery slope" arguments for allowing such changes, it is my distinct hope that running a Track Arm WILL increase the performance of the FOX Mustang in addition to increasing chassis longevity. If so, this could allow a distinctly different and potentially cheaper and easier path for folks to follow in order to "equalize" the FOX platform against the other newer platforms from both GM and Ford. This could work out very well since the likely penalty for such an increase in performance is a mandated narrower track width and/or narrower tires and wheels that actually fit inside the factory body work without the extensive modifications currently needed to accommodate a maximized track width along with 275 tires on 9.5" wheels. Perfect! We could keep the FOXes looking much more like they did from the factory than with the modifications we currently allow, keep their performance on par with the other cars, increase chassis longevity, and spend less time and money doing it. Everyone wins.

Why are all the cool discussions like this here instead of the National CMC Forum?

[GlennCMC70]

While I understand the "can of worms" and "slippery slope" arguments for allowing such changes, it is my distinct hope that running a Track Arm WILL increase the performance of the FOX Mustang in addition to increasing chassis longevity. If so, this could allow a distinctly different and potentially cheaper and easier path for folks to follow in order to "equalize" the FOX platform against the other newer platforms from both GM and Ford. This could work out very well since the likely penalty for such an increase in performance is a mandated narrower track width and/or narrower tires and wheels that actually fit inside the factory body work without the extensive modifications currently needed to accommodate a maximized track width along with 275 tires on 9.5" wheels. Perfect! We could keep the FOXes looking much more like they did from the factory than with the modifications we currently allow, keep their performance on par with the other cars, increase chassis longevity, and spend less time and money doing it. Everyone wins.

Why are all the cool discussions like this here instead of the National CMC Forum?

If you set the Fox track to inside the OEM bodywork, you in no way could get the 4th gen's track narrow enough to balance things out. This was the problem w/ setting a "limit" for track. The Fox got a huge bump. The GM's got nothing beyond what had been allowed since day 1 of CMC and folks think the GM's were given something. We moved to a hard number since it was hard to tell if a guy stretched his fenders or had a tweaked body from a crash. The Fox also need this to fit the max wheel size. No way the series is going to require a 17x7 wheel cause that is all the Fox can fit w/ OEM fenders. OEM 17" wheel size for the GM's is 9". Makes no sense to make the wheel width smaller than that. Common aftermarket 17's are 9.5" for Ford and GM. Sounds like a good number. Fox needed help in 2 areas - increase in track and fitting 17x9.5's. We allowed mods - not required them. At this point I still think 16x8's are faster than 17x9's. I picked up 20lbs from the "upgrade". Strongly considering going back to 16's for 2013. So far w/ 17's and 30 more HP, I'm slower.

I don't think the Fox or SN-95 need any help. Kellam ran plenty fast in the SN-95. I can assure you he can only drive the car up to what it is capable of, and not beyond. The potential of the car was demonstrated. We don't allow mod's based on driver skill. Mosty in TX has kicked all our asses. Fox. Kellam has kicked all our asses. SN-95. Wirtz has kick all our asses. 3rd gen. Alford/Proctor is kicking all our asses. 4th gen. Varner has kicked all our asses. Fox. We have a pretty good balance. I see the TA on the Fox/SN-95 likely upsetting that. If it is allowed it will be for chassis longevity. If it provides a increase in performance, the platform will be penalized. Could be increased weight. Could be less track. Who knows. Could be both.
Ford guys want a TA. Why? Cause GM guys have one. So do we require the Fords w/ TA to set the pinion angle to match that of the GM (stock by the way). How about requiring it to be made of thin stamped sheet metal that induces wheel hop of the likes that you have never seen? Think the T-5 is weak now? Wheel hop that TA Fox/SN-95 w/ a 4th to 3rd downshift at 90-100 mph. Ever grenaded a ring gear and pinion from it? Since the Ford aftermarket like optimized the pinion angle and optimized the material it is made from as well and designing it to be very rigid, we will now have to allow the GM's to use aftermarket TA's as well. Cause we all gotta have the same crap, right?


Your gonna be had pressed to find a CMC Director who thinks the Fox/SN-95 needs an adjustment at this point. If there is one, they need to speak up in the Director emails, cause I haven't see any evidence of it.


Rant off.

[AllZWay]

Please don't say we can't run these items because if someone sees a guy winning that runs one he will think he has to run that item also. You guys threw that one out the window when you let $2500.00 big brake kits in CMC.


JJ

No kidding... I still disagree with this decision.

[rpoz27]

You guys asking for ta's and running cheap shocks will regret it. Axle hop under braking is terrible unless you have good ear shocks. Also the mounting bracket and required subframes is a huge weight penalty. Weld the stock pickup points and go racing.