Texas Mustang Challenge Review 2016/2015

[Suck fumes]

if I were still heavily involved in racing and running nationals I would def build a later LS1 Fbody. Torque diff down low is insane. However the mustang 4.6 does sing a lot better on the top end so. Ideally I would want one of each based on the track haha.

My car has always been about 80pds overweight but I never cared cause it was well balanced at that weight.

[BADVENM]

For NASA Rocky Mountain CMC 2016 (at our local tracks not including cross regional events):

GM (Dustin) won 13 races
GM (Weston) won 2 races
Ford (me) won 2 races

[AI#97]

Beyond your claims of technical knowledge and ability, you haven't provided anything technical. You have just stated your opinion that all of the current Camaro drivers suck. This, for a class and group that you don't even run in???


I liked it much better when you were banned...


Richard P.

Richard, it's obvious you've got something personal against me but get the fuck over it already. When I got my hands on Misty's camaro, it was essentially a CMC car with 400rwhp. It had soft CMC spring rates and factory suspension under it with average aero bits and a cammed LS6 with shocks that I wouldn't put on a street car. I also don't ONLY deal with just our two cars. I have worked with NUMEROUS mustangs, camaros, Vettes, BMW's, miatas and just about everything under the sun over the years at the track, So quit speaking of things you know nothing about, including my "ego". If there is anyone fragile around here it's you. Grow the fuck up and act like a man and end all the personal bitchy bullshit which is where you ALWAYS seem to take this shit. I'm here offering 10+ years of chassis development experience from 10 times more track experience than ANYONE here on BOTH chassis and you are still taking personal shots from the past from when a rookie stepped in and nearly whipped your ass in AI 10 years ago. I have no delusions of my abilities but you seem to have some of your own superiority.

I will stand by my statement that even your two cars are NOT at the full extent of the CMC rules. As much as you speak about all the springs and swaybars you have tested, what shocks are you running? What have you done with valving for both compression and rebound? Have you played with the nitrogen charge or can you due to your shock selection? What have you done with live tire temps? What do your wheels weigh? How consistent is your driver? Is your driver even hitting an apex? What are the corner weights within what you can do in CMC? Have the changes you have made actually made a difference in the car? Is the chassis flexing so much that changes aren't having an effect? How often are you changing out the heim joints? How much flex is there in the pan hard bar? Are you still running an LT1 instead of an LS1?

Just because it's a "same for same" series and the rules are meant to level the playing field doesn't mean that someone isn't going to out engineer or out spend you OR OUT DRIVE YOU. Those that bitch about the rules the most tend to be either one of two types. Bad drivers or bad engineers. Which one are you? Or both?

As for not running in this class...well, I've considered coming back and building a CMC car. I constantly meet others that have considered joining the series as well and I push them toward ya'll often because of the "budget" nature of the series and the camaraderie as well as large fields and close racing. I'd like to build a 3rd gen camaro but since Misty's tub is about to come available or just get cut up, it's nearly free to build a car and join. However, I keep seeing racers in the series constantly asking for rules changes to level the playing field when they themselves don't put forth the effort in testing and development within the rules to be more competitive which could eventually cost me money to reconfigure my build. Thankfully (I can't believe I'm saying this), the directors have done a good job to not listen to most of the complaining and have kept the rules fairly stable except for the track width thing on the 4th gen camaros and admittedly, that could have been damn expensive for some to buy 8 to 12 new wheels.

Basic premise, finish playing within the rules before you ask for a rules change...or better yet, develop the driver without spending money on the car. You might be amazed of the outcome because you certainly don't want a developed driver showing up with the concessions being made to make a particular chassis faster because a group of drivers currently in that chassis aren't fast. You sort of have that situation with Tyler, Craig and McSpaddin now where in the past you had that with Burch, Proctor and the other 3rd gen driver (forget his name) who aren't around any more. Develop the drivers, then develop the cars within the existing rules, then MAYBE look at some leveling....MAYBE.

[Fbody383]

You were thinking of Jeff Wirtz, CMC19.

Basic premise, finish playing within the rules before you ask for a rules change...

The reality is we've never made an attempt to reconcile if we had gone too far, not far enough, or hit the target square in the bullseye.

I don't see these two statements as compatible. If they are, then was enough driver/car development done prior to the last rule change?

The facts are that significant platform adjustments were made AND the tire changed at the same time. I believe the group as a whole has been patient and watched and worked, some to a greater degree than others, to see if we are in a good spot as a series with Texas apparently having the rocket ship mustang outliers.

I'm dollar/fun limited - we softened the springs up 15%, got a couple podiums and some cheap tires, and moved up the order a little in '16. Yes, I need to at least pull the shocks off the car, yes I need more seat time, yes I could run newer tires.

I believe the mid-pack and back may be as close as it has ever been, but at the same time the pointy end seems to be all mustangs off the front.

I'll share any of the Traqmate data we have on the #39 with anybody that wants it.

[blk96gt]

I've got Traqmate data as well if anyone wants it. One thing that needs to be considered when comparing data though is how many heat cycles are on the tires. Comparing someone with sticker tires to someone who has 15HC tires could be misleading.

[ShadowBolt]

So... all very interesting reading and I appreciate everyone voicing their thoughts. Last time we changed CMC rules about platform parity was for the 2013 season. We took track width away (0.75") from the GM camp and added weight (50lbs) to the GMs as well. I hated adding weight to the GM cars over taking weight off of the Mustangs but back then many GM drivers couldn't make minimum weight so it made things better.

The discussions then were almost exactly like the discussions in this and the other thread...except the platforms were swapped. At the time we did what I consider to be a fair job of trying to use data to help including lap times, number of wins, number of fastest laps, and even theoretical best laps using data loggers. We rationalized needing to make changes, and we did.

Four racing seasons later, we certainly don't have Camaro Camaro Challenge as many in 2011 said we were headed to. Instead, in Texas, we've had a ford win the series four years in a row, and have plenty of fast cars running foxes, SN95s, SN99s, as well as GMs. I'd say the rules changes worked. Perhaps they worked too well, perhaps not and that is why I purposely started encouraging discussion about platform parity that have essentially been dormant for a long time. The reality is we've never made an attempt to reconcile if we had gone too far, not far enough, or hit the target square in the bullseye. As I explained to the rest of the directors, I'm not in a particular hurry to make a change, but I do want to continue discussion and spend time gathering data and analyzing it to see if a change is warranted.

Al, you are welcome to use my Trackmate to put in different cars to see where we are. Real data is the only thing that counts. Numbers of wins and poles is BS. Track width should be as close as possible IMHO. Why should anyone get extra width? We may have gone too far in weight but I don't know. I do think that if the Mustang was the same weight as the fourth gen the race results would be exactly the same. Performance would be different but I don't see it changing the results......maybe I'm wrong. I know BL is sure I'm wrong. I'm not sure the Fox needs to weigh any less than a SN95 or SN99 but most are way over the min. anyway. Please add 200 lbs. to Tyler and Craig's cars and I will be winning every race........yeah...BS. Okay back to the real world. If the data shows that we should all weigh the same thing no problem.
I know I talked to Derek Wright and he told me point blank that the Camaro was a better race car and he felt he had an advantage. In fact he ask me why I was driving a Mustang. We also have to remember that Mr. Curtis kind of won everything at Hallett two years ago in a fourth gen. I think we are very close guys and talking about wins and poles is not the answer. Lets get some data and if adjustments need to be made so be it. I know guys over 58 should get an extra 50 HP and TQ!


JJ

[blk96gt]

As far as weight goes, up until this weekend I always came across the scales at a minimum of 3260 (usually closer to 3280). This last weekend I came in at 3196.

[Fbody383]

We also have to remember that Mr. Curtis kind of won everything at Hallett two years ago in a fourth gen. I think we are very close guys and talking about wins and poles is not the answer.

Hallett 2014
R1 Rahjes/Jordan/Mosty/Curtis
R2 McCormick/Mosty/Francis/Rahjes
R3 Crumpacker/Jordan/Curtis/Mozader
R4 Curtis/Mosty/Rahjes/Francis/Fernandez - I'm pretty sure this was the mixed RA1/RR year.

[mach1]

How do they deal with platform parity in pro racing, IE World Challenge, etc? So if someone puts tons of effort into improving grip on their car, they will potentially get penalized after comparing data. Also, the driver really needs to be taken out of the equation on the platform discussion.

[mach1]

Hallett 2014
R1 Rajes/Jordan/Mosty/Curtis
R2 McCormick/Mosty/Francis/Rajes
R3 Crumpacker/Jordan/Curtis/Mozader
R4 Curtis/Mosty/Rajes/Francis/Fernandez - I'm pretty sure this was the mixed RA1/RR year.

What about qual?