CMC Mustang guys - inside please!

[Al Fernandez]

Glenn is right, the fact that these are not allowed is not new. Drivers have asked for them on and off since I started CMC. I myself bugged Tony G when I started about similar options circa 2001. Caster/camber plates bring many of the same benefits, but they bring the most important one: allowing the rance of alignment settings necessary to make tire wear decent. Rear upper mounts do nothing other than drop lap times.

Thank you Glenn for your help in ensuring the Texas drivers understand the rules and stick to them.

"Ratting out your friends" is an important phylosophical problem we all face in ammateur racing. I would hope all of you would have the confience in your officials to tell them your the honest truth whenever you find something wrong or simply something you think isnt quite right. Its not supposed to be the responsibility of a driver to confront another driver about legality. Thats what officials get paid so much to do. Keeping those conversations confidential is necessary, so asking Glenn who brought this particular deal to his attention isnt (IMHO) constructive.

[Adam Ginsberg]

All Directors are in agreement that this part is not legal.

It never ceases to amaze me how often Glenn decides to "speak for all the directors", and how often he gets it wrong.

Glenn is incorrect.

[BryanL]

It never ceases to amaze me how often Glenn decides to "speak for all the directors", and how often he gets it wrong.

Glenn is incorrect.

So Al is wrong too about this part being illegal? Are there other directors that think its legal other than you?

[ShadowBolt]

Glenn is right, the fact that these are not allowed is not new. Drivers have asked for them on and off since I started CMC. I myself bugged Tony G when I started about similar options circa 2001. Caster/camber plates bring many of the same benefits, but they bring the most important one: allowing the rance of alignment settings necessary to make tire wear decent. Rear upper mounts do nothing other than drop lap times.

Thank you Glenn for your help in ensuring the Texas drivers understand the rules and stick to them.

"Ratting out your friends" is an important phylosophical problem we all face in ammateur racing. I would hope all of you would have the confience in your officials to tell them your the honest truth whenever you find something wrong or simply something you think isnt quite right. Its not supposed to be the responsibility of a driver to confront another driver about legality. Thats what officials get paid so much to do. Keeping those conversations confidential is necessary, so asking Glenn who brought this particular deal to his attention isnt (IMHO) constructive.

"Rear upper mounts do nothing other than drop lap times."

So now I know why JK kicked my ass. Just kidding! I can't see these making that much difference. Can you back up this claim Al? As I said I don't really care but as they say on Corner Carvers........do you have any tech to support this?

JJ

[Al Fernandez]

Jerry, I certainly agree that they wont make much of a difference. Racing is not about a few changes that drop seconds, its about many of changes that drop tenths. The entire purpose of those rear mounts is to eliminate the rubber bushing so that the tire's motion is more directly controlled by the shock (as opposed to by the shock and the flexing of the rubber). Rubber bushings are in effect part shock and part spring. Spherical bearings are neither. This is all great from the point of view of allowing the driver to extract more out of the car. They dont reduce the cost to make your car "top shelf". They dont make the car any safer in an impact. They dont enable closer and more competitive racing. If they were legal all the fast guys would get 'em and some of the guys on a budget would just chalk them up as another reason why they're in the "have not" camp.

[jeremiahkellam]

I thought you knew Jerry, they not only provide a stable mounting point for the shocks, butbthey also double as an active KERS and DRS system....

But down to business. Im ok with the idea that these mounts are deamed illegal. But on what basis? Is it the modified geometry, modified shock tower, or both?

You cant really say that the spherical Bearing is what makes it illegal... So long as it is mounted without modifying the shock tower and the effective mounting point is oem equivilant, it would be fine, right?

[Crumpacker]

Im ok with the idea that these mounts are deamed illegal. But on what basis? Is it the modified geometry, modified shock tower, or both?

You cant really say that the spherical Bearing is what makes it illegal... So long as it is mounted without modifying the shock tower and the effective mounting point is oem equivilant, it would be fine, right?

That is exactly what I'm getting out of this.

With bushing material unrestricted - the spherical bearing is okay (just like the poor man's 3-link). I think it's the modified mounting point that's causing issues.


-your friendly rubber bushing, stock 4-link guy.

[Al Fernandez]

Bushing material is indeed unrestricted, but in this case we're not just removing a rubber bushing and replacing it with a bushing made of some other material or combination of materials. Installing the part entails drilling four mounting holes and (potentially, depending on the car) enlarging the OE hole for the shock shaft. Then you bolt the bearing carrier onto the tower. That is what allows the substitute bushing to mount, and it is (according to MM, without welding) a permanent modification. Rule 7.33.8 states shocks must mount to the OEM stock unmodified mounting point and does not alter the stock geometry. 7.33.10 defines an exception to 7.33.8 for methods by which adjustment to front caster and camber can be made (plates, eccentrics, etc.)

All of the GM guys have the same exact rear upper shock mount style (bayonet with a rubber bushing). This issue also affects 4th gen front upper shock mounts, front torque arm mounts, and probably a couple of others I'm not remembering off the top of my head.

Any time you're allowed to cut/weld/permanently modify something in the suspension its specifically allowed. Modifying the upper shock mount point and relocating the pivot point is pretty clearly not allowed.

[ShadowBolt]

Jerry, I certainly agree that they wont make much of a difference. Racing is not about a few changes that drop seconds, its about many of changes that drop tenths. The entire purpose of those rear mounts is to eliminate the rubber bushing so that the tire's motion is more directly controlled by the shock (as opposed to by the shock and the flexing of the rubber). Rubber bushings are in effect part shock and part spring. Spherical bearings are neither. This is all great from the point of view of allowing the driver to extract more out of the car. They dont reduce the cost to make your car "top shelf". They dont make the car any safer in an impact. They dont enable closer and more competitive racing. If they were legal all the fast guys would get 'em and some of the guys on a budget would just chalk them up as another reason why they're in the "have not" camp.

Thanks Al,

I just wondered if they make even a tenth difference. I know what you mean about a little here and a little there but I was wondering how much these would help. I assumed a lot of work for very little difference. Maybe it would be worth doing if the rules allowed it.

JJ

[GlennCMC70]

It never ceases to amaze me how often Glenn decides to "speak for all the directors", and how often he gets it wrong.

Glenn is incorrect.

I'll once again speak for Adam.
Adam is pointing out that not all Directors responded to the group email questioning this parts legality. I gave what I felt was plenty of time for all Directors to respond. Once Al (the National Director if you all forgot) responded and it reflected all the the responces from those Direcotrs who decided to respond, I felt it was OK for me to make this post.
So.... did all Directors respond? No. I thought a lack of responce was due to a lack of difference in opinion.
Does Adam think these are legal? I hope not and assume he agree's they are illegal. As of today Adam has still not responded to the email sent to all Directors. Yet he had time to come in here and make a comment.
So take Adam's comments w/ a grain of salt and move on.
I'll edit my responce quoted above so it is more accurate.