Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 96

Thread: Texas Mustang Challenge Review 2016/2015

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby RichardP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Friendswood, TX
    Posts
    1,198
    Quote Originally Posted by AI#97 View Post
    Given there are ZERO CMC 3rd/4th gens pushing the limit of the rules and there are SEVERAL mustangs knocking loudly on that door, I'd say the camaro drivers need to trim their mullets and get all the empty beer cans out of the cars and actually do some serious development on the cars.

    "ZERO" Piss off! There has been no expense spared preparing the Silver Camaro to the limit of the rules and we have done a bunch of development on it on non-race weekends. What has it gotten us? Dan is doing very well in Camaro-Camaro Challenge. At TWS, he was the fastest Camaro in both qualifying sessions, the fastest Camaro in every race, and the highest Camaro finisher in all four races. His driving got him to the lead of both inverts (on Saturday, that didn't last long). Both times Dan was sent to the scales after a race, he came across 10 pounds over, exactly as scripted.

    Dan also spent so much money on tires this year. I think it was a huge waste of money. Why? Even though fresh tires make us faster, every time (which is fucking offensive for club level racing) they didn't do a thing to make us run with Mustangs. Besides, Camaro tires cost more - the car is heavier so it goes through them faster and they are subsidized much less by Toyo bucks than Mustang tires.


    Richard P.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Grass-Passer Boudy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Southlake, TX
    Posts
    672
    I agree with Richard. These cars under these limited rules are pretty much developed out, there are no revelations left. I would recommend giving Dan or some other driver a Data Collection Pass for the first 2 events and evaluate the results. Give him 50 lbs, 1" back, and see what happens. Make appropriate changes as necessary for everyone else. It's not exact but tossing 50 lbs back and forth across the fence is going to prove pointless for the next 5 years as it has the last. I pleaded for testing and data points on my way out and nothing has evolved yet.

    I'm also disgusted with the tires that NASA is taking money from TOYO to make us run, they suck. It took 3 sets (read $4,000) to get through the Nationals last year in Spec Iron. Ridiculous!!! These tires can drop off as much as 2 seconds as early as the 3rd event on heavier cars. As a result front guys are buying 3 to 4 sets for 6 events which I think, more than anything else accounts for the results cited in the OP.

    Boudy

  3. #3
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,449
    Blog Entries
    2
    How many lt1 4th gens are able to actually make it below 3300 on the new scales NASA got a season or two ago?

    I'm low 3300s but start each race on a full tank, have a cool suit, fire system, and maybe a few extra pounds in electrical than most. I'll have no problem making 3300 with the aluminum block next year, I'll have to ballast up.

    Just curious if any lt1 4th gen is close to 3250.

    Also why the heck did the 3rd gens also get the same weight minimum as the 4th gens? The weight balance, steering, camber curve, and aero are all worse. If anything I think they should get 50lbs less but that is just my humble opinion.

    Right now im fighting to have one complete season on the same engine.
    Last edited by Pranav; 10-22-2016 at 03:11 AM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby Fbody383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Pearland, TX
    Posts
    3,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Pranav View Post
    How many lt1 4th gens are able to actually make it below 3300 on the new scales NASA got a season or two ago?
    The #39 dynoed at 262/308ish - race weight it 3275. We shoot for 3290.

    WITH 70lbs of BALLAST.

    I have few to no issues with the scales - due to my bad math I was underweight at MSRH in the #15, we added ballast and came out within 5lbs of what we wanted/needed at TWS.

    Quote Originally Posted by AI#97
    As has been stated, the Camaro dominated in the past. Sadly, those three drivers haven't raced in a while. If they had, I bet the mustang might not look so good.
    Under what ruleset with which tires?

    At this point I will not claim we've done everything we could (i.e. spend more money than I currently want to) do to the #39. Fresh shocks are on the list; yes, they've been on the car since 2009. Cheap things we can look at over the winter - corner weights, bars, springs, maybe some track time.

    I'm more than happy to share data with anyone that wants a copy.
    Last edited by Fbody383; 10-22-2016 at 08:19 PM.
    #39 CMC Camaro
    Orange is Fast!
    CMC-NT01 FTW!

  5. #5
    I generally scale 70# over weight post race. Nothing to do with the car....

    Something to consider GM guys.... Loose is not fast despite what Ricky Bobby might say. I've not seen a Camaro that isn't...

  6. #6
    Senior Member Grass-Passer
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Pearland.TX
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Trublu View Post
    I generally scale 70# over weight post race. Nothing to do with the car....

    Something to consider GM guys.... Loose is not fast despite what Ricky Bobby might say. I've not seen a Camaro that isn't...
    Craig, I am still Amazed how you took you your car from what it was, and made it perform! Major Kudos!
    I have a lot to learn.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby Supercharged111's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    1,149
    Loose is not fast indeed. My ideal setup is a smidge of understeer until I put down the skinny pedal. At least that's what I've told myself.
    RM CMC Director

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Storm Trooper View Post
    Craig, I am still Amazed how you took you your car from what it was, and made it perform! Major Kudos!
    I have a lot to learn.
    Thanks Sean. Happy to help you any way I can

  9. #9
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby RichardP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Friendswood, TX
    Posts
    1,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Trublu View Post
    Loose is not fast despite what Ricky Bobby might say. I've not seen a Camaro that isn't...
    I agree with loose is not fast and Dan doesn't like a loose car. Both the Silver and the Red car suffered from oversteer when we got to TWS this past event and I'm not sure why? Neither were like that the last time we were there. The current softer setup seems to have balance changes not only with different tracks but different grip levels at the same tracks. We didn't have that with the older stiffer setup.

    The silver car is running 800 lb/in front springs. The Orange car is at 750. Between the two cars, we have 200, 225, 250, and 275 rear springs available to balance those out with. That's in addition to the 1100/1000 front, 300 rear setup we were running on Orange previously. We also have multiple different front and rear sway bar (and no rear bar) setups available to tune balance. All spring and sway bar sizes in our stock have been tried on one car or another. We have gotten pretty fast at changing rear springs and sway bars at the track. We have mixed and matched bar and spring setups to try to balance the car while fighting with being able to put power down. The new car has also been more receptive to rear track width changes with the softer setup with other side effects that Chris never reported when we did track width testing on my car.

    At TWS, the Red car took the smaller rear sway bar out of the trailer (along with some other changes) while the Silver car ended up swapping rear sway bars with another car after other changes weren't as effective as Dan would have liked. We ended up at yet another different rear sway bar size that was not yet in our toy box and the car worked much better.


    Richard P.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby RichardP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Friendswood, TX
    Posts
    1,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Pranav View Post
    How many lt1 4th gens are able to actually make it below 3300 on the new scales NASA got a season or two ago?

    I'm low 3300s but start each race on a full tank, have a cool suit, fire system, and maybe a few extra pounds in electrical than most. I'll have no problem making 3300 with the aluminum block next year, I'll have to ballast up.

    Just curious if any lt1 4th gen is close to 3250.

    Proctor's old car could make weight pretty easy but fourth gen weight was a known problem back when it was built so it was a major driver in its construction with a minimum legal cage, etc. It currently running 10 lbs of ballast and a full tank to stay above its minimum weight of 3260.

    Dan's car isn't minimalist in any way. It has a very nice and very safe cage. It also has a fuel cell, subframe connectors, etc. He is maxed out on horsepower for the chart in the rules and still struggles to meet his minimum weight of 3355. We also haven't gotten around to installing the fire system yet. Based on the incident at TWS, and the charred mess drooling multiple fluids onto the floor of our shop, I'm guessing Dan won't want to start the new season without that installed. The fire system will weigh a little bit more than the ballast we currently have. I'm guessing we might have a hard time getting to our minimum allowed weight without fuel starving. Also, Dan isn't the biggest guy and he doesn't run a cool suit. I would be way over if I drove it - I have a much bigger gut and I need a cool suit...

    There is no desire or intent to go to an aluminum block LS engine for either of our cars.


    Richard P.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •