Why can't a Mustang run a torque arm?

[michaelmosty]

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.

I'm going to keep my rant simple.
First off, the "common aftermarket" wheel for the Mustang is 17x9" (not 9.5", that is the common GM size).
Second, you say the Fox got a "huge bump" in track width. I was at 71.75" in CMC trim w/ 16" wheels and it cleared the stock fenders. The HUGE BUMP moved the max to 72.5" and then 72.75" for this year. This is not that Huge IMO.
You say the GM's got nothing beyond what was allowed since day 1. This is ASSuming the rule has been fair since day 1. That is the exact reason I had complained to Al for over 2 years, b/c I knew how much wider any GM was over any Ford. You imply that everyone got upset when the numbers came out (b/c the GM is wider than Ford) but we had already had known this for years.

You said: "you in no way could get the 4th gen's track narrow enough to balance things out".
Why not? Almost every GM I know is running b/w .5" to 1" of spacer / side to get to max track width. Why not just remove the spacers and get down to the same track width of the SN95+SN99 Mustangs? This would help make the platforms closer to EQUAL.

[MHISSTC]

No need to rant back and forth... ...merely discussing potential pros and cons and a variety of fallout issues concerning TA setups. Glenn is much more familiar with GM and TA setups than I am and brought up several potential cons I was not familiar with. Likewise, Michael responded with items and considerations GM folks may not be as familiar with. I can appreciate both sides of the story and provided my input as a single viewpoint to contribute to the discussion.

[GlennCMC70]

I was a little agitated yesterday due to working outside in the heat till noon at home and then off to work till 6pm, so my tone was a bit harsh due to not having much free time to debate this and being a little tired. My POV is still the same.

I don't know of any GM's running more than 1/2" spacers on each side. It can't be done w/out getting outside the fenders w/ 17x9 wheels. If you ran 17x9.5's, the spacers have to come off. The 1/2" is to the outside for GM's.

The huge bump for the Fox was the total change over a short period of time. You are correct that "GM's width was a "complaint" from the Ford camp for years - including you. But I don't recall a time when the Fox/SN-95 and the 4th gen shaired the same minimum weight. So there has always been an adjustment. You (and me) came in to the series just after the 4th gen came down from the 3600lb minimum (I think the weight is correct). So the 4th gen was being adjusted as needed. Perhaps the move to 3200lbs for the 4th gen was too low. And perhaps the fix was to drop the Fords down. Things have been evolving long before me and you came along. They will continue to do so if history serves as any indication. The tools are better now. No longer do we use wins and Championships as the only factor for adjustments.


So tell me why a Fox needs the TA to be equal w/ the GM's. And the answer isn't "Cause the GM's have one."


The short of it all is this.......
The cars are different. They have different performance envolopes. Adjustments have been made. How much of each adjustment goes towards coilovers vs no coilovers, or TA vs no TA, or better aero vs poor aero.... (the list goes no) ... who knows. . The fact remains that the platforms are balanced when viewed from a peak performance perspective (laptimes, lateral G's, accell/decell G's). I welcome anyone to prove different.

[michaelmosty]

I just don't understand how you can look at both platforms on paper and say they are equal. The Mustang is a lighter weight, the GM is wider, has a T/A, Coil-overs, aero, etc. Do these extra parts equal the 50/100 lb difference in weight for the Mustang? What is each part worth in weight? Nobody knows!!!

I'm not mad at anyone about this but it does make me frustrated. There are features of all platforms that just can't be changed. Then there are features that are easily changed (and for very little $$ at that).

You stated you don't know of any 4th gen running more than 1/2" of spacer / side. Fair enough, I haven't taken a super close look at any of them to know the exact dimensions. I do however not understand why it wouldn't be in the best intent of the rules to put the GM max track width at whatever the width is with 275 on a 17x9.5" wheel with NO spacers. Then that is just 1 more thing that is closer to equal b/w all platforms.
The only reason I see not to implement this rule is IF you feel that without the extra inch of track width the Mustang then would be the superior platform. Is that the case?

Look at all the regions across the nation at their car count and the successful drivers and see if there is a common theme in platform.

**edit**
And for the record: I would prefer to not go down the road of having the Mustang add a T/A, Coil-overs, and add weight. That is why I have been pushing so hard for the track width equalization for so long b/c there is so little cost involved vs. other options.
I also agree there to be a discrepancy in Mustang aftermarket T/A vs. the GM stock piece. I am not an engineer but I can understand the GM piece has its issues.

[BADVENM]

My comment is in no way a complaint and is simply an observation and some concern.

In Rocky Mountain region the dominate platform is GM...specifically one with the LS motor. There are only 4 Mustangs out of 15 or so cars that show up to an event regularly, I'm the only Fox.

I regularly finish about 5-6 seconds (fastest lap) behind the front running GM's. I attribute this to speed into and out of the corners, my driving line and experience compared to the faster cars. I've shown that I can hang with the LS cars on the straights (this year) but have to scrub speed going into the corner which impacts exit speed coming out of the corner. I'm hoping that getting to the max track width will allow more stability into and out of the corner which hopefully will keep my speed up and as a whole get closer to the GM platforms. I'm also up against some very talented drivers.

Over the past month or two I'm starting to realize that car prep, time spent on test n tune days, and the driver are so important to ones success and podium finishes. I do have concern with the spirit of CMC when I hear at least one GM driver talk about dyno tuning/testing shocks and who knows what else. Granted its legal and if you have the money to do it I guess go for it, at the end of the year you get a little trophy and Toyo bucks for your effort. Maybe I'm not taking the sport as seriously as I should but when it comes to race day dont get me wrong, I compete as hard as I can.

We (several of us in Rocky Mountain region including those who regularly podium) do have concern that some of our drivers who are also our friends will get discouraged when the same cars podium at every event and simply not show up anymore. We (like I'm sure other regions) have a general pecking order of who's fast and who's not as fast. We're not sure how to equalize the field and have often talked about ideas on how to do so, only to come up empty.

There is no easy answer to equalizing the platforms. We could all jump to 4th GM platforms but then it would be the Camaro Challenge or General Motors Challenge.

I would be curious if its less expensive to reduce the track width of the GM platforms or increase the track width of the Fox platform to match that of the GM.

Not sure what I just typed made much sense but I wanted to at least share what I was feeling/thinking.

[RichardP]

I don't know of any GM's running more than 1/2" spacers on each side. It can't be done w/out getting outside the fenders w/ 17x9 wheels. If you ran 17x9.5's, the spacers have to come off. The 1/2" is to the outside for GM's.

Orange is running 3/4" spacers on the front with 17 x 9.5" wheels. That is roughly 1/2" narrower that we were last year before the track width measurement rule change. Backspacing is critical to this. We are running C5 Z06 front wheels. I don't know what their backspacing is...


Richard P.

[Al Fernandez]

I just want to commend everyone on the civilized discussion. Other than Glenn's little comment about other directors voting against him out of spite that is (cut that shit out Glenn, or it'll be a self fulfilling prophecy)

Has anyone tried a spherical bearing on both sides of the PM3L upper link? Would that maybe provide the degree of motion needed to keep from twisting the mount?

[GlennCMC70]

Orange is running 3/4" spacers on the front with 17 x 9.5" wheels. That is roughly 1/2" narrower that we were last year before the track width measurement rule change. Backspacing is critical to this. We are running C5 Z06 front wheels. I don't know what their backspacing is...


Richard P.

C5 ZO6 wheels have a deep offest. way more than the Camaro wheels. In fact, those guys running them on street cars run spacers on them. My info was in reference to F-body wheels.
C5 ZO6 wheels have like a 56mm offest where a F-body will have a 36mm. I ran a 56mm offset w/ my 17x11's on my street/track 4th gen. So the 3/4" makes sence.

[David Love AI27]

Well if you want my opinion...

I just want to commend everyone on the civilized discussion.

Oh... Nevermind...

[mitchntx]

I gotta idea ...

TAs for the Ford Platform and the 4Gs get to chop 6" out of the wheelbase.

Seeking the same suspension, track width, wheel size, HP/TQ, weight ... why stop there?

Finds complete parity, its the weight needed for the 4G and eliminates all fairness questions.
Ford gets blue decals and GM gets orange.

Eliminates the need for directors, rules lobbying even the internet.

yer welcome.