No flame from me Rob. As I have said many times I would like us to go back to 230/300 (I know that will never happen) and a tire that would not fall off and last a season or at least half a season (don't know if that is possible). None of this would get the 55 to the pointy end but would save a lot of money.
JJ
Now I realize that some Know it All thread Nazi will drop in to remind us that Toyo offers Toyo bucks and so they have to make a profit or it's just not worth it. My response will be that NASA and Toyo have struck a bargain to both gain at our expense. NASA wasn't happy that we pay entrance fees, they want sponsorship dollars too. That's fine and all but at what point do you stop marketing yourself as the affordable spec racing series and acknowledge you're now the big money league just like the series' that you started out to better.
Rules changes have more than doubled the cost to build a competitive CMC car while the new tires has run up the cost of running up front by 3 or 4 times. Two sets of R1A's used to be enough but with increased demand due to upgrades and the change to RR's it seems that it now takes 6 sets of tires to run up front.
Boudy
My only big push back on Boudy is that the rules and tire changed at the same time. Would the rules have changed the same if the tire had been in play for a year or two prior?Originally Posted by Rob Liebbe
Calling the CMC National Director - how do we the masses get you National/Regional guys to take this up-stream?
At any event(s) we want, we can run any tire a good number of folks choose and just grid AIX.
#39 CMC Camaro
Orange is Fast!
CMC-NT01 FTW!
So what do we say to the Mustang guys in every other region of the country that are getting killed by the fourth gen? In Colorado last year (if I read the post correctly) seventeen races and two of those were won by a Mustang. So now we are going to tell those guys they need to add pounds to their car because in Texas the Mustang is winning? Go back and read Al's post. I think he is on the right track in wanting to get data to make sure we did not go too far when the changes were made.
JJ
Oh my gosh that's a lot of words I just read
We can solve this all very easily,
Spec iron
AI # 12
David, please explain how the tire change effected platform parity in your eyes.
I've given a pretty damn accurate account of the timeline and results we saw for the 4 years since the rules change. This was also accompanied by a logical and reasonable explanation to what happened to GM wins and why they dwindled each year to present. Some guys just don't want reasonable, they don't want logical analysis unless it agrees with them.
What in the eyes of the slighted would actually prove your point here? What markers or results would actually satisfy the perceived grievance? I've stated many times here that, "If we can prove my car needs 25 lbs, then I certainly don't want 50. If we can prove it needs nothing then I'll STFU." We've since got access to data from both platforms, what more is needed? Mosty got his ass kicked in 2012 by Proctor at a 2:1 margin and the data backed it up. So again, WHAT'S THE DESIRED RESULT OF THIS TREAD? Everything needed to substantiate or squash the complaint is painfully obvious and has been provided.
Boudy
Sure.
Were the rules now in effect proposed with or without the knowledge of the impact of the RR?
My position is that the rules and tires changed together - 2 variables at once. The change was made best on analysis of "best available" data, though not necessary on all obtainable data, and appeared to be a reasonable compromise until now. Not that your outside-in view is wrong, I'm saying my in-the-car view is that the mustangs have an advantage approaching such a level that it should be reviewed.
I've said repeatedly I'm kinda-but-not-entirely on the fence. I take Team ARC at their word that they're trying, HARD, to close the gap. I am skeptical that there is any "proof" that under the current rules the RR works as well consistently across the platforms. If it does and we're in the "spend to win" era of CMC then we need to drag that clearly into the sunshine for the CMC racers - so that's part of the desired result.
I simply disagree. We are still running a throw-down rebuilt LT1, a self-rebuilt T56, LS1 brakes, the Auburn diff I put in the car in 09, and the shocks from 09. Biggest expense today vs. then is the trans cost.
Nah... just wouldn't be you. Be good to have you back... bring extra clecos.
Last edited by Fbody383; 10-28-2016 at 12:13 PM.
#39 CMC Camaro
Orange is Fast!
CMC-NT01 FTW!
Everyone is talking tires, I haven't had anyone agree to run RA1's for 2017, why not, we have nothing to lose, and they may be better with the cycles?
Few other things, Mosty set the ECR record on 15+ HC RR's if I remember, I set the record at Hallett this year on 9HC RR's, I won every race at NOLA on 10+ HC RR's vs Craig's stickers.
And maybe, just maybe... This is the real reason for your particular in-the-car view of the Mustangs running $2,500 shocks, $2,300 brakes, $1,000 diffs, $2,500 wheel sets, and 2HC tires. Believe me, I'm not trying to insult you buddy, just pointing out what's hurting you way way more than 50 lbs on your floorboard.
But none the less I hope to see you next season. And all my clecos are all in my dash panel, sorry.
Boudy
You just made the point - what are the CMC rules supposed to do? The big brakes are here to stay and I see both sides.
Wheels could cost $10k but as long as they make minimum weight who cares? If we need to raise the wheel weights (ahem... with permanently attached spacers or not) we can.
Tires are part of the problem. We've yet to make rules changes in light of the current data including the RR.
I would be open to it if we can get some critical mass.
ME?!? Where you been... I've been sandbagging for 2 1/2 years so Dan and Al could get a rules breauxk.
#39 CMC Camaro
Orange is Fast!
CMC-NT01 FTW!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks