Why can't a Mustang run a torque arm?

[ShadowBolt]

Jerry,
Buy a torque arm, bolt it on while you are trying to figure out a solution for the car. Run AI for the rest of the year and then with the data you've gathered (delta between you and your closest racer from previous races) would be able to see what a torque arm gives, performance wise. Just my .02

I agree since it just cost $255.00 but why do we try to make some things the same (i.e. power, tires, shocks, weight) but on others we don't. Why not let the Mustang have the torque arm and the coil overs like the Camaro does and put all the cars at thew same weight (except adjust for the aluminum block engines since so many think it's a big advantage)? Don't tell me it's because of money when you let $2500.00 big brakes in CMC. Why would the Mustang be any better than a Camaro just because we added the same things the Camaro has? What part or parts does any Camaro driver want on his car that a Mustang has. Why not make them as equal as possible. I would think if adding these parts make a Mustang faster, then the Camaro has an advantage since they already have them. I really don't have any idea if it would help at all. You certainly do not have to have these things to be able to win in CMC, we saw that when JK was winning everything. The torque arm would just cure this issue for me at very little cost. I also wonder why I can add a Panhard bar but not a torque arm?


JJ

[michaelmosty]

Jerry,
Buy a torque arm, bolt it on while you are trying to figure out a solution for the car. Run AI for the rest of the year and then with the data you've gathered (delta between you and your closest racer from previous races) would be able to see what a torque arm gives, performance wise. Just my .02

That sounds like a possible idea IF the directors are interested in looking at this possible change to the series.
Pardon me if I am a little hesitant but these types of ideas (tq arm - c/o struts - etc) seem to get shot down faster than any idea from Jeremy Gunter!!! ;^)

What outcome "would" the directors like to see?
If the car is now faster would the idea be thrown out b/c it now has an advantage?
If it doesn't make it faster would it then be allowed b/c it doesn't give the advantage some thought it would give?

I just don't want to see time and $$ go into something if there is no possible change out there.

[ShadowBolt]

That sounds like a possible idea IF the directors are interested in looking at this possible change to the series.
Pardon me if I am a little hesitant but these types of ideas (tq arm - c/o struts - etc) seem to get shot down faster than any idea from Jeremy Gunter!!! ;^)

What outcome "would" the directors like to see?
If the car is now faster would the idea be thrown out b/c it now has an advantage?
If it doesn't make it faster would it then be allowed b/c it doesn't give the advantage some thought it would give?

I just don't want to see time and $$ go into something if there is no possible change out there.

If it made the Mustangs faster is it not doing the same thing for the Mustang that it is doing for the Camaro? The question is not if it makes the Mustang faster, the question is, does it help make the cars more even (assuming they are not and I have no idea if they are or not) with the torque arms?

JJ

[AllZWay]

Pardon me if I am a little hesitant but these types of ideas (tq arm - c/o struts - etc) seem to get shot down faster than any idea from Jeremy Gunter!!! ;^)

...nearly spit on the monitor here.

[GlennCMC70]

I agree since it just cost $255.00 but why do we try to make some things the same (i.e. power, tires, shocks, weight) but on others we don't. Why not let the Mustang have the torque arm and the coil overs like the Camaro does and put all the cars at thew same weight (except adjust for the aluminum block engines since so many think it's a big advantage)? Don't tell me it's because of money when you let $2500.00 big brakes in CMC. Why would the Mustang be any better than a Camaro just because we added the same things the Camaro has? What part or parts does any Camaro driver want on his car that a Mustang can has. Why not make them as equal as possible. I would think if adding these parts make a Mustang faster, then the Camaro has an advantage since they already have them. I really don't have any idea if it would help at all. You certainly do not have to have these things to be able to win in CMC, we saw that when JK was winning everything. The torque arm would just cure this issue for me at very little cost and made me wonder why I can add a Panhard bar but not a torque arm?


JJ

Best argument I have seen in text for allowing it. The best thing to do is provide data. It is hard to allow something when we don't know the outcome. Some things are allowed for safety and cost reduction. The TA doesn't really fit in either place. If you do some testing, be sure to run the car at your current minimum and at 3200.
Why not run it at Hallet in Sept? It would be a Texas NON-points weekend and a track you just ran. I'm about to contact th Central Region POC and inquire about some of us Texas folks coming up.

[RichardP]

The concept of adding a torque arm to a CMC Mustang has been discussed here before. To summarize, Todd said the reason they are not allowed is because the CMC management experimented with one and concluded that a torque arm on a Mustang isn't workable without doing the full AI treatment to the front end. I expressed a mild disagreement with their conclusion...

If you do add a torque arm, the fundamental change in rear roll center height will require suspension tuning to regain balance. Details would need to be worked by track testing but a doubling of the current rear spring rate would be a reasonable first cut.

Good luck with whatever direction you choose. It doesn't look like an easy fix. I would recommend re-tubing the car as a less expensive alternative to running AI...


Richard P.

[michaelmosty]

I understand that if the data shows a Mustang at 3200 lbs. w/ a tq arm and c/o struts is no faster than without them then there is no need to spend $$ on the parts. Case over.
What if it turns out the parts make the car 1/4, 1/2, or 1 second faster? Would the directors consider making these parts legal or would that be perceived as an advantage?
I just think it would be good to get a general understanding of the possible directions this could go before time and $$ is spent.
Just thinking out loud via my keyboard.

[RichardP]

What if it turns out the parts make the car 1/4, 1/2, or 1 second faster?

I see no realistic way of determining this...


Richard P.

[GlennCMC70]

I understand that if the data shows a Mustang at 3200 lbs. w/ a tq arm and c/o struts is no faster than without them then there is no need to spend $$ on the parts. Case over.
What if it turns out the parts make the car 1/4, 1/2, or 1 second faster? Would the directors consider making these parts legal or would that be perceived as an advantage?
I just think it would be good to get a general understanding of the possible directions this could go before time and $$ is spent.
Just thinking out loud via my keyboard.

Your asking me to predict the vote of the CMC Directors? Now that is funny. If you want it approved, your best bet is to have me be against it. If I'm for it, a few will vote opposite of me just for spite, some of which drive Foxes.

So Michael - You seem to want this to increase the performance of the platoform. Right? Cause your first sentance seems to say that if I'm reading you correctly.
My responce to that is, if there is no performace gain, but the win is chassis longevity, it could get approved.
If the car gets faster (likely since the aftermarket wouldn't sell any otherwise), but can be offset w/ a higher minimum weight, it could get approved. Perhaps we could even state that the addition of a TA will result in an increased minimum weight. So you could run w/ or w/out. Of course, there is always a possibility that you would have to run a 235 tire. All just a hip shot from me.
First you gotta be willing to test what you propose. The better the data, the better chance.

I have done just this myself. I spent $600 out of pocket on a part I'm working to get legalized. I'll not get any of that money back from CMC if they are not deemed legal. I felt it was worth the risk, so I did it.

[michaelmosty]

As long as the discussion is open then that is a step in the right direction.
I just would want to know that "IF" the Mustang tested at 3200 lbs and with the extra parts on the car it turned out ran consistent faster times, that the directors would still consider the "possibility" of a change.
Basically what I don't want to hear is something to the effect of, "we think it is equal w/ the current rules and now that the Mustang is faster than before we think your car now has an advantage", end of discussion.

I love the idea of making things as equal as possible with fewer differences b/w the platforms.
I'm glad this is being discussed so everyone can see things from every possible angle, thanks.