Will it drive different with a welded in cage?

[ShadowBolt]

How different (if at all) will CMC 17 drive with the welded in cage? If it's different I would not have a clue what to change to get it back. I am going to need a little help with what to change to effect different problems. I hope it just makes it better. Lord knows I need it. I'm no EV! I got my ass handed to me by all of you at TWS back in August.


JJ

[GlennCMC70]

work the issue. if its loose, make it less loose. if it pushes, make it more loose.

[mitchntx]

Jerry, sorting a car means you have to gather data.

Create a baseline and write it down.

Run a set number of laps and gather some data like tire temps and pressures.

Compare the delta between the baseline and the hot temps.

Make a single change. I personally like to make a dramatic change in order to "book-end" the car's handling.

Go run another set of laps, remembering to reduce the variables as much as possible (driver aggressiveness, ambient temps, track temps, humidity, fuel load, traffic, etc.) Remember, you don't have to run at 100%, just be consistent.

And gather more data.

With a single DE weekend, you can gather data from 10-12 lap sets, if you have a helper. If you come to MSR-C to test, call me and I'll take temps and pressures for you.

www.colemanracing.com and www.pitstopusa.com have year end specials on inventory reduction. A set of springs, in a rate and free height you desire, can be had for $60. Also, lightweight aluminum control arms can be had for under $20 and 3/4" shank rod ends can be had for under $20 each.

Just examples of cubic dollars :roll:

To answer your question directly, yes ... chassis flex should be reduced. So, be prepared for a sway bar change to get the car to rotate.

Softer front rate will give the front more bite and help turn in. Stiffer rear rate will help loosen the car on corner exit.

Any sway bar that came on that genre Mustang, whether it be a GT, SVO or six cylinder is legal. Got to find the right combo. I find sway bars on local forums where "kids" buy "cookie cutter" suspension packages and almost give away stock parts ... especially if mom wants the stuff out of the garage. ;)

Make sure your sway bar bushings are in good shape and the end links are so very important. O'Reilly's sells Moog polyurethane end links for under $20. They are the same as the more expensive Energy Suspension jobs. They MUST be equal length and tightened to the same spec each time to give you a consistent preload on the sway bar.

[ShadowBolt]

THANKS MITCH!

That is what I was looking for. :D

JJ

[jeffburch]

Conversely,
at our legal minimum ride heights, there isn't alot of suspension travel (at least in my platform).
I am of the belief that chassis flex as a whole isn't a bad thing.
Your results may vary.


jb

[mitchntx]

Jeff,

Have you noted the flex as consistent? I won't disagree that using the body flex as one big sway bar (or tosion bar) is a good thing.

Jerry, it's just a way of using the tools given you in your platform of choice to your advantage.

Irony ....

http://www.camaromustangchallenge.com/drivers/varner.htm
See Varner's quote?

You can never stop moving forward. If you do, it's your choice and everyone passes you by.

[Cody Powell]

Dude I don't know you yet. :D
Listen to what these guys say, memorize it, learn it, live it.
They are really smart and very helpful.
I personally cannot thank them enough.

[AI#97]

Jerry, sorting a car means you have to gather data.

Create a baseline and write it down.

Run a set number of laps and gather some data like tire temps and pressures.

Compare the delta between the baseline and the hot temps.

Make a single change. I personally like to make a dramatic change in order to "book-end" the car's handling.

Go run another set of laps, remembering to reduce the variables as much as possible (driver aggressiveness, ambient temps, track temps, humidity, fuel load, traffic, etc.) Remember, you don't have to run at 100%, just be consistent.

And gather more data.

With a single DE weekend, you can gather data from 10-12 lap sets, if you have a helper. If you come to MSR-C to test, call me and I'll take temps and pressures for you.

www.colemanracing.com and www.pitstopusa.com have year end specials on inventory reduction. A set of springs, in a rate and free height you desire, can be had for $60. Also, lightweight aluminum control arms can be had for under $20 and 3/4" shank rod ends can be had for under $20 each.

Just examples of cubic dollars :roll:

To answer your question directly, yes ... chassis flex should be reduced. So, be prepared for a sway bar change to get the car to rotate.

Softer front rate will give the front more bite and help turn in. Stiffer rear rate will help loosen the car on corner exit.

Any sway bar that came on that genre Mustang, whether it be a GT, SVO or six cylinder is legal. Got to find the right combo. I find sway bars on local forums where "kids" buy "cookie cutter" suspension packages and almost give away stock parts ... especially if mom wants the stuff out of the garage. ;)

Make sure your sway bar bushings are in good shape and the end links are so very important. O'Reilly's sells Moog polyurethane end links for under $20. They are the same as the more expensive Energy Suspension jobs. They MUST be equal length and tightened to the same spec each time to give you a consistent preload on the sway bar.

Do you sell a translation booklet because the only thing I got from that is that I haven't done ANYTHING to tune the handling of my car yet!!!! Wonder what will happen if I ever do!!! :shock: :wink:

[RichardP]

Listen to what these guys say, memorize it, learn it, live it. They are really smart and very helpful.


Their methodology is good and their heart is certainly in the right place but they don’t have a clue about the specifics of a Mustang (which is understandable).


For front springs from Coleman, the 5” OD x 12” Front Springs will work on the front of the car. Rates from 700 to 1400 are available in 100 lb/in increments. You might have to chop them to get the ride height you want, especially in the higher rates.

For rear springs, neither Coleman Pit Stop have any 5” OD pigtail springs in the correct length. If you convert to conventional or coil-over springs in the stock location (I’ve done both), then they have some selection but it isn’t clear whether or not that’s CMC legal per 8.36.4? You would be looking for a spring in the 8" length range.

There are no CMC Mustang legal control arms available from Coleman so don’t waste brain cycles looking.

For Fox Mustang front sway bars, there are two (V8 and 4 cyl). There is enough difference between the two that they really aren’t useful for tuning. You either set the car up with one or the other. The 4 cylinder bar seems to be the most popular.

There are of course several different front sway bars available for the ’94 to ’04 Mustangs in an excellent variety of stepped rates. The sway bars themselves are even legal for Fox Mustangs but since the attachment of these sway bars to a Fox Mustang would require modifications to the frame you can’t really legally attach them to a Fox. That makes them only useful as strange looking ballast (technically their shape actually violates the ballast rules so you can’t use them for that either). There has been a request to get clarification on the legal attachment of these but nothing has come of it.


For rear sway bars, any of the ’79 to ’04 bars bolt right up. I can tell the difference between running with and without a rear bar but I haven’t been able to realistically tell the difference between the bars. The only real difference is that many of the later bars will break when you run them hard. There are of course no sway bar bushings or end links associated with a Mustang rear sway bar.

Realistically, given the inherent bind of the Mustang rear suspension, voluntarily adding more bind in the form of a sway bar is a bad idea. I’d try to make the car work without it. Try picking a higher rate spring from the excellent variety of rear springs available…


And, to answer your original question, I’ll put $5 on pretty good oversteer with the new cage. Whatever it does, we'll help you get it right. Well, as right as you can get a Mustang... :-)


Richard P.

[Todd Covini]

Yeah...That's what I was going to say, Richard. :wink:

[mitchntx]

Thanks for the input, Richard.
You are correct, I need to learn more about the platform.



For front springs from Coleman, the 5” OD x 12” Front Springs will work on the front of the car. Rates from 700 to 1400 are available in 100 lb/in increments. You might have to chop them to get the ride height you want, especially in the higher rates.


Do they need to be ground flat or do they seat in a rubber mount?



For rear springs, neither Coleman Pit Stop have any 5” OD pigtail springs in the correct length. If you convert to conventional or coil-over springs in the stock location (I’ve done both), then they have some selection but it isn’t clear whether or not that’s CMC legal per 8.36.4? You would be looking for a spring in the 8" length range.


Why wouldn't a 5.5" pigtail work? Any perch is legal as long as it isn't adjustable.



There are no CMC Mustang legal control arms available from Coleman so don’t waste brain cycles looking.


(Speaking from never having looked closely enough ...)

Why not? A control rod is a length of tubing with heims on either end. All that is needed is the correct bushing/spacer at the mounting point. Coleman has a laundry list of available spacers and bushings.



For Fox Mustang front sway bars, there are two (V8 and 4 cyl). There is enough difference between the two that they really aren’t useful for tuning. You either set the car up with one or the other. The 4 cylinder bar seems to be the most popular.

There are of course several different front sway bars available for the ’94 to ’04 Mustangs in an excellent variety of stepped rates. The sway bars themselves are even legal for Fox Mustangs but since the attachment of these sway bars to a Fox Mustang would require modifications to the frame you can’t really legally attach them to a Fox. That makes them only useful as strange looking ballast (technically their shape actually violates the ballast rules so you can’t use them for that either). There has been a request to get clarification on the legal attachment of these but nothing has come of it.


For rear sway bars, any of the ’79 to ’04 bars bolt right up. I can tell the difference between running with and without a rear bar but I haven’t been able to realistically tell the difference between the bars. The only real difference is that many of the later bars will break when you run them hard. There are of course no sway bar bushings or end links associated with a Mustang rear sway bar.

Realistically, given the inherent bind of the Mustang rear suspension, voluntarily adding more bind in the form of a sway bar is a bad idea. I’d try to make the car work without it. Try picking a higher rate spring from the excellent variety of rear springs available…


I will assume altering the mount to the car's frame is the issue? It can't be any more than welding in a plate with 2 holes drilled in it, can it? If that little bit of effort allows a wider variety of sway bar choices, that would be effort well spent.

8.36.13 allows the sway bar update/backdate from 79-04 including Cobra and Saleen. So, it could be argued that attaching said bars comes with the territory.

The 4th gen F-car has an issue with breaking one of the front sway bar mounts. And kicking the camber out where the car really likes it, has the sway bar end rubbing against the shock body during suspension travel.

We have 2 options on the rear ... 19mm and 21mm. And we can definitely tell the difference. And no bar is just madness ...

Thanks for sharing your insight, Richard.

[mitchntx]

Is the information on this site credible?

http://www.miracerros.com/mustang/index.htm

[GlennCMC70]

Mitch on a Mustang, the spring sits on the control arm, so its got to be strong enough to take that type of load.

[RichardP]

For front springs from Coleman, the 5” OD x 12” Front Springs will work on the front of the car. Rates from 700 to 1400 are available in 100 lb/in increments. You might have to chop them to get the ride height you want, especially in the higher rates.


Do they need to be ground flat or do they seat in a rubber mount?

They are ground flat on the top and seat into a helical shaped mount on the control arm.




For rear springs, neither Coleman Pit Stop have any 5” OD pigtail springs in the correct length. If you convert to conventional or coil-over springs in the stock location (I’ve done both), then they have some selection but it isn’t clear whether or not that’s CMC legal per 8.36.4? You would be looking for a spring in the 8" length range.


Why wouldn't a 5.5" pigtail work? Any perch is legal as long as it isn't adjustable..

I guess you could use the 5.5" pigtail. It would be sloppy in the upper mount. I'm thinking a 5" conventional spring ground flat on each end would work and would be legal with a different lower spring perch. Going to a coil-over diameter spring requires welding a smaller diameter perch to the upper spring pocket. That doesn't seem legal?




There are no CMC Mustang legal control arms available from Coleman so don’t waste brain cycles looking.


(Speaking from never having looked closely enough ...)

Why not? A control rod is a length of tubing with heims on either end. All that is needed is the correct bushing/spacer at the mounting point. Coleman has a laundry list of available spacers and bushings.


Unlike the GM stuff, the rear springs sit on top of the rear lower control arms. The control arms also serve as the only attachment for the rear sway bar if you decide to use it.




There are of course several different front sway bars available for the ’94 to ’04 Mustangs in an excellent variety of stepped rates. The sway bars themselves are even legal for Fox Mustangs but since the attachment of these sway bars to a Fox Mustang would require modifications to the frame you can’t really legally attach them to a Fox.



I will assume altering the mount to the car's frame is the issue? It can't be any more than welding in a plate with 2 holes drilled in it, can it? If that little bit of effort allows a wider variety of sway bar choices, that would be effort well spent.

8.36.13 allows the sway bar update/backdate from 79-04 including Cobra and Saleen. So, it could be argued that attaching said bars comes with the territory.

That would be an argument that I think you would loose. If it doesn't say you can do it, you can't. I don't think anyone would think the required modifications are unreasonable but it would be nice to get an offical clarification and note about it in the rules.



And no bar is just madness ...


No, putting lipstick on a '79 Fairmont and calling it a racecar is madness... :D


Richard P.

[GlennCMC70]

sway bar data:
http://www.miracerros.com/mustang/sway2.htm

spring data:
http://www.miracerros.com/mustang/springs_calcs.htm

this one is good too:
http://www.miracerros.com/mustang/t_suspension.htm

good info to take to your all Ford site.

[mitchntx]

Now THIS is good stuff ... the way this series and this region ought to work ...






For front springs from Coleman, the 5” OD x 12” Front Springs will work on the front of the car. Rates from 700 to 1400 are available in 100 lb/in increments. You might have to chop them to get the ride height you want, especially in the higher rates.


Do they need to be ground flat or do they seat in a rubber mount?

They are ground flat on the top and seat into a helical shaped mount on the control arm.


Help me understand the control arm. See below ....






For rear springs, neither Coleman Pit Stop have any 5” OD pigtail springs in the correct length. If you convert to conventional or coil-over springs in the stock location (I’ve done both), then they have some selection but it isn’t clear whether or not that’s CMC legal per 8.36.4? You would be looking for a spring in the 8" length range.


Why wouldn't a 5.5" pigtail work? Any perch is legal as long as it isn't adjustable..

I guess you could use the 5.5" pigtail. It would be sloppy in the upper mount. I'm thinking a 5" conventional spring ground flat on each end would work and would be legal with a different lower spring perch. Going to a coil-over diameter spring requires welding a smaller diameter perch to the upper spring pocket. That doesn't seem legal?


Why wouldn't it be legal? It's the same pick-up point ... no geometry has changed.

8.36.3 says the spring mount has to be a fixed height. I know it's specifically discussing the rear LCA, but we're now into that "intent" area ...

8.36.4 is pretty clear to me ... as long as the spring goes in where it came out and attaches the same way.

Also, the rear GM upper isolator is a rubber donut/bushing, made for a 5.5" spring. I bet it would work or made to work and reduce, if not eliminate, the slop. Bushing material is unrestricted ...






There are no CMC Mustang legal control arms available from Coleman so don’t waste brain cycles looking.


(Speaking from never having looked closely enough ...)

Why not? A control rod is a length of tubing with heims on either end. All that is needed is the correct bushing/spacer at the mounting point. Coleman has a laundry list of available spacers and bushings.


Unlike the GM stuff, the rear springs sit on top of the rear lower control arms. The control arms also serve as the only attachment for the rear sway bar if you decide to use it.



This LCA ... isn't the GT rear designed differently? In those illustrations I found, I saw 2 types of rear suspensions ... one with the spring on the LCA and one where the spring is on the axle. Is that a year model difference and falls outside the update/backdate rule?

From the GM side, I know that rubber bushings on a live axle will induce bind, making effective spring rates unpredictable. I assume this same phenomenon is seen here.

Global West offers a mono-ball kit for the 4th gen front lower A-Arms. It's a very simple design and allows for unbound movement. I bet this is something Argent Lab could come up with and sell like hot cakes.





There are of course several different front sway bars available for the ’94 to ’04 Mustangs in an excellent variety of stepped rates. The sway bars themselves are even legal for Fox Mustangs but since the attachment of these sway bars to a Fox Mustang would require modifications to the frame you can’t really legally attach them to a Fox.



I will assume altering the mount to the car's frame is the issue? It can't be any more than welding in a plate with 2 holes drilled in it, can it? If that little bit of effort allows a wider variety of sway bar choices, that would be effort well spent.

8.36.13 allows the sway bar update/backdate from 79-04 including Cobra and Saleen. So, it could be argued that attaching said bars comes with the territory.

That would be an argument that I think you would loose. If it doesn't say you can do it, you can't. I don't think anyone would think the required modifications are unreasonable but it would be nice to get an offical clarification and note about it in the rules.



I think that is a clarification easily won. Allowing the backdate but not allowing the mounting is silly.

And it is rules clarification, re-write season ...





And no bar is just madness ...


No, putting lipstick on a '79 Fairmont and calling it a racecar is madness... :D


Richard P.

I didn't see anywhere in the rules where it's mandatory to pick a Fairmont as a platform of choice ... specifically a Fox.

:P right back at you ...

FWIW ... I used to drive a 81 Farimont ... straight six and a 3 speed on the floor. I kind of liked it ... it was that weird color yellow with white vinyl interior. 8)



And is that data I found last night credible data?

[mitchntx]

No, putting lipstick on a '79 Fairmont and calling it a racecar is madness... :D


Richard P.

One last thing ...

It was OK as long as the platform was winning. And it did win, regularly, with 4th gens in the field.

It's only when the GM side went to work, realizing whining about rules help wasn't gonna happen, that GM leapt in front ... a 3rd gen I might add, not a 4th. All of you remember my whining about how unfair it was in 2005, right?

I didn't sell all my stuff and go pout, nor did I attack and insult fellow competitors. Only when those shots were first fired, did I respond.

And based upon Nationals results, had Jeff been running this year, he very well could be on top ... again, a 3rd gen.

But the focus and ire seems to be targeting 4th gens. I have to wonder if it's personal and not necessarily the platform.

[mitchntx]

To be 100% clear on the 2 designs of rear suspension ...

http://www.miracerros.com/mustang/t_rear.gif

This is what I thought all these platforms had underneath them.



http://www.miracerros.com/mustang/t_rear_control_arms.jpg

But then I saw this. Is this an SN95?

I'm trying to learn sumpin' here ... 8)

[RichardP]

This LCA ... isn't the GT rear designed differently? In those illustrations I found, I saw 2 types of rear suspensions ... one with the spring on the LCA and one where the spring is on the axle. Is that a year model difference and falls outside the update/backdate rule?



You are giving Ford WAY too much credit here. The kludged four link that has the spring on the control arm is the rear suspension design we are talking about here. It is the same design as found on the '79 Fairmont. The design didn't change at all from '79 to '04. All of the rear suspension parts are direct bolt ons from all of those years of Mustangs (along with Farimonts, several years of T-Birds, and half a dozen other pedestrian commuter vehicles).

The other rear suspension shown in those pictures is the three link from the newest Mustang. After 26 years of producing the old stuff, it apparently seemed time to try something new. :) It's a nice setup, behaves like it should, and responds favorably to modifications. It's of course not CMC legal (CMC 2, though).




From the GM side, I know that rubber bushings on a live axle will induce bind, making effective spring rates unpredictable. I assume this same phenomenon is seen here.

Global West offers a mono-ball kit for the 4th gen front lower A-Arms. It's a very simple design and allows for unbound movement. I bet this is something Argent Lab could come up with and sell like hot cakes.



Here is where things get fun. If you have a three link or a torque arm rear suspension, going to mono-balls does reduce bind and does a better job of positively locating things. I highly recommend that setup.


With the horrible skewed upper arm four link found on the Mustangs, in order for the suspension to travel throughout it’s range of travel, the lengths of the arms effectively have to change length. Mono-balls like to rotate well but they certainly don’t like to change length. Adding mono-balls to a Mustang suspension always adds bind.

Anyway, those parts are readily available in the Mustang aftermarket and work great for people who are not required to keep the stock upper arms.

Adding a panhard rod also adds bind. Without a panhard rod, the rear end flops all over the place. It’s a wonderful mixture of kludges and compromises to get it to work at all.

It’s not arbitrary that the Mustang is considered difficult to drive consistently even if you are able to make it “fast.”


Richard P.

[mitchntx]

Good stuff ... I appreciate the effort to teach ...




It is the same design as found on the '79 Fairmont. The design didn't change at all from '79 to '04. All of the rear suspension parts are direct bolt ons from all of those years of Mustangs (along with Farimonts, several years of T-Birds, and half a dozen other pedestrian commuter vehicles).


So chosing to call it a Fairmont instead of Thunderbird is a marketing ploy. ;)




The other rear suspension shown in those pictures is the three link from the newest Mustang. After 26 years of producing the old stuff, it apparently seemed time to try something new. :) It's a nice setup, behaves like it should, and responds favorably to modifications. It's of course not CMC legal (CMC 2, though).


05 and newer, right?




Here is where things get fun. If you have a three link or a torque arm rear suspension, going to mono-balls does reduce bind and does a better job of positively locating things. I highly recommend that setup.


Thanks ... it was the platform I chose.




With the horrible skewed upper arm four link found on the Mustangs, in order for the suspension to travel throughout it’s range of travel, the lengths of the arms effectively have to change length. Mono-balls like to rotate well but they certainly don’t like to change length. Adding mono-balls to a Mustang suspension always adds bind.


Very similar to a shifting rear diff when attached using a PHB.

Are those terrible, horrible, ridiculous and chosen LCAs angled towards the center of the car?

Doesn't NASCAR use a similar design trailing arm? Why do you suppose they work in NASCAR and not here? I'm not being a smartass, it's a real question.

What is the typical rear suspension travel on a FOX?
Are the FOX arms level or angled up/down on a CMC car set to racing ride height?

Where is the binding? Twisting with body roll or unequaled trailing arm length? Or a combination?

What keeps the rear diff centered, preventing the suspension travel from allowing the diff to "float"?




Adding a panhard rod also adds bind. Without a panhard rod, the rear end flops all over the place. It’s a wonderful mixture of kludges and compromises to get it to work at all.


Curious how Eric and James Griffith III made it work so well? Sheer talent?

[NASA13]

I think no panhard, is no problem. I just get concerned with all the movement causing fatigue of the control arms and their mounting points. It kinda feels more stable in a sloppy 'bout to lose control kinda way. does that make sense? Didnt think so. Going back to bed.

[Todd Covini]

It made perfect sense, Corey.
Loose is fast.
:wink:

-=- T

[RichardP]

Are those terrible, horrible, ridiculous and chosen LCAs angled towards the center of the car?

It’s not the lower control arms that are horrible. They would be just fine if you didn’t have to use them in conjunction with the upper arms. There is a slight skew towards the center of the lower arms but it’s subtle.



Doesn't NASCAR use a similar design trailing arm? Why do you suppose they work in NASCAR and not here? I'm not being a smartass, it's a real question.


Truck arms in NASCAR are a completely different thing. The truck arms are rigidly bolted to the rear axle and there are no upper arms. The truck arms themselves have to twist in order for the suspension to roll. And who says they actually work??? It’s a nasty setup but it doesn’t matter if everyone is required to use the same stuff. I’m certain everyone in the series would dump the design if the rules allowed for it. If you follow the penalties that NASCAR hands out, there have been a bunch of people who try whatever trick they can to reduce the torsional stiffness of the truck arms to reduce the bind and free up the suspension. Bind is bad.




Where is the binding? Twisting with body roll or unequaled trailing arm length? Or a combination?

What keeps the rear diff centered, preventing the suspension travel from allowing the diff to "float"?

The upper arms are sharply angled from the differential out towards the outside of the car. The angled uppers arms are supposed to perform a dual function of controlling the pinion angle and the lateral movement of the axle. They do neither function well but are especially poor at controlling side to side movement of the rear axle. That’s why a panhard bar was allowed. The angled four link arrangement creates a statically indeterminate mechanism. The lengths of the arms have to change in order for the suspension to go through it’s motion. If you stiffen the bushings in the control arms to try and get better control of the axle, there is more resistance to this changing of lengths. If you put really stiff bushings in all four of the control arms, the dimensions still change only now it’s actually deflection of the floor pan, which is actually pretty weak.


Richard P.

[mitchntx]

How 'bout this ...

Span the stock points the upper LCAs attach on the rear diff and to the body. And then use a single rod ended control arm in place of the double, horrible, terrible units, along the driveshaft axis.

It would require a PHB, obviously. to locate the rear diff. But, it eliminates the bind.

And the chassis P/U points remain unchanged.

[RichardP]

How 'bout this ...

Span the stock points the upper LCAs attach on the rear diff and to the body. And then use a single rod ended control arm in place of the double, horrible, terrible units, along the driveshaft axis.

It would require a PHB, obviously. to locate the rear diff. But, it eliminates the bind.

And the chassis P/U points remain unchanged.


Yea, not even close to CMC legal. Anyway, nothing I'm saying is charting new territory for the Mustang guys. There is no real reason to try and solve the issue. The aftermarket has done that many times over. The biggest problem is deciding which route you want to go with. Unless you run CMC. Then you are stuck with it.


Richard P.

[mitchntx]

How 'bout this ...

Span the stock points the upper LCAs attach on the rear diff and to the body. And then use a single rod ended control arm in place of the double, horrible, terrible units, along the driveshaft axis.


Yea, not even close to CMC legal. Anyway, nothing I'm saying is charting new territory for the Mustang guys. There is no real reason to try and solve the issue. The aftermarket has done that many times over. The biggest problem is deciding which route you want to go with. Unless you run CMC. Then you are stuck with it.

Richard P.

All the chassis points are used appropriately and unaltered. How is it so far from legal?



8.36.3. The OEM stock rear lower control arms only may be replaced with "replacement type" aftermarket control arms. Any aftermarket control arms used must be of fixed OEM length, or adjusted to OEM length and have jam nuts tack welded or otherwise fixed to maintain the exact suspension geometry of the OEM control arms they replace. Any spring perch must be of fixed height. The control arms must bolt on using the OEM factory holes and no cutting, welding or other modifications may be made to the structure of the car or rear end housing to install these control arms.

Replacement type - check
Fixed OEM length - not a problem
Rear geometry is unchanged - yessir
Spring perches - unchanged
All factory bolt holes used - not a problem

While this is one of those "grey" areas, as a racer/builder it's my job to read the rules and interpret them to my advantage.

Of course, this kind of mentality has me in the Tony/Al/Todd/David/Glenn/John/Jerry doghouse more times than not. But hey, they wrote'em. I just implement them. :lol:

I know that CMC is "suppooooooosed" to be a showroom kind of series.
But when the rules makers start allowing air dams, front breathers, flaring fenders and removing factory body parts to install fancy wings and spoilers, that kind of spits in the face of that mentality.

[RichardP]

All the chassis points are used appropriately and unaltered. How is it so far from legal?



8.36.3. The OEM stock rear lower control arms only may be replaced




Your reading comprhension could use a little work... :D


Richard P.

[mitchntx]

Even better ... the uppers aren't even mentioned ... open season! :wink:

Actually, I lumped all the rear control arms together. Was that wrong?

The F-Car has an upper AND a lower PHB ... according to Al, PHB covers both.

[mitchntx]

If I could edit my post, I would add ...

Geez, Richard. Been taking Matt White lessons?

:P

[Rob Liebbe]

Do the rules specifically say that you cannot add the link that Mitch proposes? I have an old Trac-Link in the garage that could be installed, then change the bushings in the upper control arms to something very soft. Seems like Bob Hahn's A-Sedan had something similar - a three link with foam bushing upper control arms.

[evarner]

How 'bout this ...

Span the stock points the upper LCAs attach on the rear diff and to the body. And then use a single rod ended control arm in place of the double, horrible, terrible units, along the driveshaft axis.

It would require a PHB, obviously. to locate the rear diff. But, it eliminates the bind.

And the chassis P/U points remain unchanged.


Yea, not even close to CMC legal. Anyway, nothing I'm saying is charting new territory for the Mustang guys. There is no real reason to try and solve the issue. The aftermarket has done that many times over. The biggest problem is deciding which route you want to go with. Unless you run CMC. Then you are stuck with it.


Richard P.


Richard, In your profession opinion would you (if the rules allowed) recommend a torque arm to solve the issue with rear bind on a Mustang? Would the $500 that is costs for a TQ arm be one addition to a race car that would help handling and eliminate the kludge of bandaid setups that most are trying to use in the series today?

On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the most effective - how would you rate a TQ arm when comparing it to current rear setups in CMC? Cost effective? Time involved?

One last question - would it make sense to invest in a TQ arm instead of the numerous spring/shock/foam inserts/control arms/spring inserts needed to test for the perfect combination only to still have rear bind as it is now?

Thank you.

[ShadowBolt]

Yeah, what Eric said.

I'm new to all this but I really would like to know. If the Mustangs could run a TQ arm would the playing field be level? Completely level? Could we all run the same weights and everything? Is this the largest issue? Other than areo (that it looks to a novice that the GM cars are way ahead in) would getting rid of the binding four link make all things even......maybe even fair?


JJ

[jeffburch]

I know of 2 foxs in Tx I've crawled under that have tq arms.

jb

[michaelmosty]

CMC cars?

[jeffburch]

yessir.

jb

[GlennCMC70]

I know of 2 foxs in Tx I've crawled under that have tq arms.

jb

what he said - CMC cars?

[GlennCMC70]

yessir.

jb

i expect a PM.

i looked at every car at one of the MSR-H events, i didnt see any T/A's.

[michaelmosty]

You sure it wasn't a phbar?

[jeffburch]

OMG!
I'm dislectic.
Where's the edit button?

Yes, Pan hard rod!
I'm sorry, I had a goober in my office distracting me when I was typing.
Geez.
Settle down.
My mistake.
Hehe.

jb

[GlennCMC70]

thanks Jeff.

[jeffburch]

MIC TEST


ONE


TWO


THREE


jb

[mitchntx]

Richard, In your profession opinion would you (if the rules allowed) recommend a torque arm to solve the issue with rear bind on a Mustang?

the rules do allow that exact set-up ... it's called a 3rd gen Camaro ...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I crack me up sometimes ...

OK .... now, I'm done.

[jeffburch]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

jb

[Rob Liebbe]

Can I put a 3rd gen back half on my Mustang?

[Todd Covini]

POSTING AS A RACER...NOT A DIRECTOR

A long time ago in a far, far away land..torque arms were legal in CMC for ALL cars. Many of the Mustang Boys installed them and ran them against the evil Camaros (3rd Gens at the time, of course). What we found was that it was an unnecessary expense, the car pushed too much on corner exit and with all the testing and tuning, that in true CMC trim...the Fox cars were faster without them.

Now...that was at a time before 4Gen Camaros. My gut feel is that the coil-over front suspension of the 4Gen Camaro is far more of an advantage than the torque arms are.

My personal opinion is that if we handed out free torque arms to all Fox-Body Mustangs to properly arm them against the onslaught of evil Camaros...the Mustangs would still lose. Probably by the same margin that they are today. There's more to it guys. Torque arms are not the end-all...there are plenty of other factors.

-=- Todd

PS- Any time I've seen a Camaro dominate a race it was because of traffic management and not because of corner exit speed. The cars are amazingly close on track and using season results to make your case is equivalent to using my Ginsberg & Covini's season points to differentiate our driver skillz.

With that said

[AI#97]

Todd is totally correct about the TQ arm being useless on a CMC mustang. As I was building my car over a 3 year period and doing autox's and open tracks, I started at the rear of the car because the parts were cheaper than the front I was trying to cure a serious oversteer problem. Well, it worked and turned into a SERIOUS push. This was all with stock Ford CRAP under the front of the car. I was then forced to bite the bullet and buy all the expensive stuff for the front of the car but I am still fighting a push on corner exit.

I drove my car for 2 years in what would have been CMC trim but about 200lbs heavy and I can tell you that the Mustang in that trim suxx arse.

Now a mustang in AI trim....that is fun!!! :twisted:

[GlennCMC70]

so for those of you who put the T/A set-up on the rear and saw a serious push, did anyone up the rear rates to get rid of the push? or did you just try and make it work w/ the same spring rates? because this mod would seriously reduce the rear roll rate thus adding alot of rear grip that would manifest itself as a push in the front.

as for the coilovers being the hot ticket....... well it was a 3rd gen that won Nationals. its has the same front suspension as a Ford, and a T/A rear like a 4th gen. i think the T/A would help the Fox car alot. maybe too much.
Matt - what type of rear suspension do you you use? David D? Richard P?

[jeffburch]

Actually, I won the nationals in a 3rd gen.
:wink:
Just 3163# sitting on 4 Toyos.

jb

[marshall_mosty]

Glenn,
I have a T/A rear on my car. I went from approx a 210 lb/in wheel rate to a 385 lb/in wheel rate to compensate for the lost spring rate due to lack of suspension bind with removing the upper C/A's.


**Nerd Tech**
(I used a motion ratio of 0.75 for the stock springs: 280*.75=210 and 1.10 for the coil overs I currently have: 350*1.10=385)

[GlennCMC70]

Glenn,
I have a T/A rear on my car. I went from approx a 210 lb/in wheel rate to a 385 lb/in wheel rate to compensate for the lost spring rate due to lack of suspension bind with removing the upper C/A's.


**Nerd Tech**
(I used a motion ratio of 0.75 for the stock springs: 280*.75=210 and 1.10 for the coil overs I currently have: 350*1.10=385)

so did that solve your "push" that the T/A caused? my guess is that those who did the conversion and the cars pushed, they didnt up the rear rates to acount of the loss of bind just a you did. eveything has to work as a system. once you change the system, you will have to change the rates.

[RichardP]

Wow, I don't really know what to say about this stuff. Some people couldn't get a torque arm suspension to work so they decided denying everyone else the chance was good for the series??? I really have to hope that isn't how it all went down.

Getting a torque arm to work on a Mustang isn't hard and there is nothing magical about it. Strangely enough when you rid the rear with the bind and conflicting roll centers, it takes roughly double the rear spring rates to get the same effective roll rate. The stock suspension is really that bad.

I've seen lots of poorly set up torque arm installations. This was really common when they first became available for Mustangs. You can get a Mustang to hang a front wheel literally more than a foot in the air on corner exit with a torque arm. Not only is it really weird looking, it's not all that conducive to good handling. That also doesn't mean torque arms don't work.

Anyway, I know I could get a torque arm to work on a Mustang. I'm sure Glenn and Mitch wouldn't have any problem either. It would make for a Mustang that an average driver could do OK in. Right now, you have to be a pretty spectacular driver to consistently keep a CMC Mustang at the limit.

I'd suggest asking for allowing torque arms back on Mustangs but this seems like an issue that would just piss Tony off enough that he wouldn't listen to anything else that people wanted to say. That doesn't seem like a good plan since there are other issues that should be addressed and might have the slimmest chance of being adopted.


Richard P.

[GlennCMC70]

i'll take that as a complement Richard, thanks.

[donovan]

I did the front and rear upgrades at the same time...

When I first brought the car to the track it pushed like a dump truck... I change springs, swaybars and ride height... it got alot better...

I finially fixed it when I change from the Fox length front control arms to the SN95 length arms...

DD

[RichardP]

When I first brought the car to the track it pushed like a dump truck...


I've seen that statement from several people. I'm not sure it's fair.

How many dump trucks have you driven at the limit? You do realize the design compromises that have to be made on vehicles with such widely varrying weights and front/rear weight biases, don't you?

I'm not sure, but I think it might be possible to get a dump truck to handle better than a Mustang with the "quadra bind" rear suspension...


:D

Richard P.

[GlennCMC70]

I finially fixed it when I change from the Fox length front control arms to the SN95 length arms...

DD

there are 2 ways to work out a push. increase rear spring rate to make the rear loose. lower the front rate to increase its grip level. making the front track wider will place more leverage on the spring thus softening its wheel rate. and reducing the push.
the end w/ the least grip is going to give up first. if its loose, the rear gave up first, if it pushes, the front gave up first.

[evarner]

1. Mustang's would definitely benefit with a torque arm as long as you know how to set it up properly. Past experience without actual suspension specifications used at the time hold little to no merit.

2. The vast knowledge the GM guys have concerning torque arms could help the mustang camp close the lap time gap..... if they chose to do so.

3. The highly experienced and respected individuals within the racing community that know suspension setups and what could work for the best bang for buck as an available option need to be heard and not thrown aside and dismissed.

<flame suit on> Fire away.

[donovan]

It was a long learing process... but that is how I got to know Richard!! :D

His imput help me adjust it out of the car, just like you described...

and... I have not driven a dump truck, but since you mentioned it... I have to guess that a dump truck might have driven better!!! Wayne drove me car at MSRC and told me that it was the worst handling racecar he had ever drove... this was back in 2004...

DD

[donovan]

It was a long learing process... but that is how I got to know Richard!! :D

His imput help me adjust it out of the car, just like you described...

and... I have not driven a dump truck, but since you mentioned it... I have to guess that a dump truck might have driven better!!! Wayne drove me car at MSRC and told me that it was the worst handling racecar he had ever drove... this was back in 2004...

DD

can we get the edit buttom back... I have had four cups of coffee and a redbull and my trying is suffering this morning...

[mitchntx]

2. The vast knowledge the GM guys have concerning torque arms could help the mustang camp close the lap time gap..... if they chose to do so.



Eric, what do you think I(we) have been doing in these threads?

Before EVERY SESSION at nationals, I walked to every driver I could and wished them well, platform be damned. And, I made a valiant attempt to debrief all I could and offer what little assistance I could, platform be damned.

But, I need to learn how the suspensions work and more importantly, need to learn how they respond to changes.

I think most, if not all, see that as some sort of clandestine attempt to torpedo the Ford effort as a whole. At least, that's the vibe I'm getting from Eric, Micheal, Adam and to an extent, Richard.

The paranoia here and at Boudy's site is/was stifling.

PEOPLE are willing to help. It has nothing to do with manufacturer or platform. We are all PEOPLE with a common interest. Turning all this into something personal has put everyone on the defensive, posturing like politicians to garner support.

Don't take a comment with so much criticism. If you don't know your spring rates, don't be offended when you're told you should. If you don't know your shock valving, don't be offended when told you should. If you don't know how wheel spacers, tire pressures, suspension bind, bump stops, chassis flex affect effective spring rates, don't be offended if told you should.

You don't have to spend countless hours testing and thousands of dollars buying parts. Lot's of folks have springs, shocks, spacers sitting on the shelf you can try out. Some vendors will let you swap springs if the ones you bought doesn't work. Just ask.

There are a LOT of avenues to take in sorting a car that DON'T involve countless weekends away from family and heavy credit card debt. It does require swallowing a little pride, though. But that's cheap and doesn't taste so bad. And who knows ... you might make a new friend and wind up with lower lap times.

/soapbox

[jeffburch]

I've never condoned adjusting one end of a car to get a change at the other.

jb

[evarner]

I'm seeing the help from the GM guys as well as those that aren't in CMC. I guess my statement was that they really don't have to but they chose to do so.

Lots of suggestions, countless recommendations and axe to the grindstone make the Texas region top notch and above the rest.

No doubt I'm stubborn. It's a perpertual fault that I have to deal with.

With an opportunity and supporting evidence to help the mustangs perform better is the goal. Any and all suggestions to try and make the current 4 link rear suspension is a bandaid at best. All I can see in my mind is a cheap and permanent solution to finally fix what Ford created years ago. As it was pointed out earlier that they finally made it better in the '05's.

With most of the competitive mustang's out there already running the SN95 front A-arm setups..etc., the TQ arm could only complement it given the fact if someone did enough homework to actually make it work with the proper spring change in the rear.

Driving on the edge is no accident for some, but how many can keep it there? I'd like to see an ok driver not have to do a one arm pushup while juggling flaming knives with their feet.

Again, if I've offended anyone please accept my apology.

[Cody Powell]

Before EVERY SESSION at nationals, I walked to every driver I could and wished them well, platform be damned. And, I made a valiant attempt to debrief all I could and offer what little assistance I could, platform be damned.

He really did and it was very helpful.


The paranoia here and at Boudy's site is/was stifling.

Boudy has a site? He is a true Rock Star!


There are a LOT of avenues to take in sorting a car that DON'T involve countless weekends away from family and heavy credit card debt. It does require swallowing a little pride, though. But that's cheap and doesn't taste so bad. And who knows ... you might make a new friend and wind up with lower lap times.

This was/is my main avenue for knowledge(and I don't even live in texas)
I have not been led astray or misled or refused an answer by anyone period and the knowledge I gained was invalueable. sp

[michaelmosty]

Hold on, I need to look up the meaning of clandestine. :)

[michaelmosty]

2. The vast knowledge the GM guys have concerning torque arms could help the mustang camp close the lap time gap..... if they chose to do so.




I think most, if not all, see that as some sort of clandestine attempt to torpedo the Ford effort as a whole. At least, that's the vibe I'm getting from Eric, Micheal, Adam and to an extent, Richard.

The paranoia here and at Boudy's site is/was stifling.



Mitch, I'm sorry you think this. I don't think that anything said here or on Boudy's site has any meaning of paranoia.

Boudy started that site so some of us could talk and learn to better understand our cars and each others cars. I and others don't know everything about our cars so we are trying everything possible to better educate ourselves to both better prepare our cars and become better drivers. This is the exact same thing that you and Glenn (and others) did and it has worked great for you. We are trying to learn from everyone whether AI, CMC, GM, or Ford.

Everyone here is a competitive and passionate individual. We all have our thoughts of what should change to better the intent of the series, maximize the quality of racing, and let everyone have the most FUN.

I don't know how the final rules process works but I would guess that the directors will take all of this great information and determine the best outcome for the series. (Al, you taking notes) I'm sure that not everyone is going to be happy with the final outcome, but that's part of it.

Nothing that happens is going to keep me away from the track!! I'll see ya at the next event, with or without my wing.

[marshall_mosty]

The last I checked, all our cars, whether they are GM's, Fords, or dump trucks still have to operate with roll centers, instant centers, etc, etc all acting through the same Toyos.

I'm glad the GM guys are willing to help out the the fundamental tuning aspects. Glenn has put up a bunch of tech (several times) regarding how to fix the front or the back depending on what the car is doing.

All the books you read are on suspenion theory... not Ford quadra-bind, or GM SLA...

Thanks to all the PEOPLE willing to help, regardless of the badge you wear on your sleeve. We all will end up with more knowledge in the end of this mess, trust me.


Oh, and for the record, the only thing I had to do to tune the torque arm on my current car is go from a GT to 4cyl front swaybar. Could it be optimized more, sure... I'm just not there yet.

[Adam Ginsberg]

I think most, if not all, see that as some sort of clandestine attempt to torpedo the Ford effort as a whole. At least, that's the vibe I'm getting from Eric, Micheal, Adam and to an extent, Richard.

Sheeshhh.....I suggest you check your ability to read a "vibe", 'cause you got it wrong.


The paranoia here and at Boudy's site is/was stifling.

C2check your ability to read a "vibe", 'cause you got it wrong, x2.

[mitchntx]

Adam ... My vibe is MY vibe.

Don't attack my ability to recieve. You can't do anything about that.

However, you can take stock of the way you send.

I'm not suggesting you change or alter anything. Just don't discount that a message sent can and does get garbled in translation.

[mitchntx]

I'm seeing the help from the GM guys as well as those that aren't in CMC. I guess my statement was that they really don't have to but they chose to do so.

Lots of suggestions, countless recommendations and axe to the grindstone make the Texas region top notch and above the rest.

Again, if I've offended anyone please accept my apology.

Point well taken, Eric. And very insightful.

And I very much appreciate you acknowledging the CHOICE and effort that Glenn, myself, Jeff and Cody (forgive me if I left anyone out) are putting into helping.

As far as I'm concerned, no apology is necessary.

We've all read Glenn's and my comments about car prep. Maybe my definition of prep is a lot different than others.

Prep is more than nut 'n and bolt'n the car, checking the fluids, tire pressures, etc.

Prepping the car is studying ...
... looking at data and reading what that data is telling you.
... understanding the data and looking at gaps in the data.
... knowing what to expect when the data tells you to make a change.
... realizing what works and what doesn't.

Prepping the car is about ...
... when adding a component, look for at least 5 ways it will fail
... make adjustments to reduce the liklihood

... when repairing a failed component, look for 5 reasons why it failed
... make adjustments to reduce the liklihood

... honestly ask yourself why car "a" consistently beats you
... use data and not finishing order is not data ... that's results.

I learned a LONG time ago, that races are won in the shop and not necessarily on the track.

[evarner]

Valid points for sure, Mitch. Thank you for sharing them.

I guess what I'm trying to stress is nothing that can be done within the current rules with the Mustang 4 link setup - to remove the inherent binding it causes by virtue of its design.

There are a few ways to fix the issue, but none of them are within the rules.

I know I have tried and failed only to find myself compensating with the steering wheel and brake/gas pedals. Minimizing bind still leaves the fact that the full potential will never be reached as long as there is bind in the rear. If the GM guys want competition from the Mustang crowd, I simply see this as a way to facilitate that action (cheap and effective).

[mitchntx]

It would naive to think that any platform is the panacea for winning. Each platform, each individual car and each driver will have it's achilles heel.

The grass always appears to be greener ...

[evarner]

It would naive to think that any platform is the panacea for winning. Each platform, each individual car and each driver will have it's achilles heel.

The grass always appears to be greener ...

Just trying to minimize the Ford's achillies heel, that's all. Is there anyone here that thinks the 4 link suspension bind is a good thing or one that doesn't need to be addressed? If I were a GM pilot, I'd welcome and support the change to help promote the series. :D

Grass is always greener if you water it.

Free the BIND!!

[RichardP]

An unintended perception has been created, largely by myself, that I believe needs fixing. The perception I’m getting is that because of the bind in the rear suspension, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to tune the handling of the car and racing a Mustang is a complete waste of time and will continue to be so until this issue is fixed.

I don’t like the quadra bind rear suspension on the Mustangs. I’ve made that pretty clear. As an engineer, it is wrong and it offends me. That doesn’t mean that it can’t be made to work on track or that there is a great performance disparity between the Fords and GMs because of it. (As mentioned before, I do believe there is a small disparity between Fox and SN95 Fords.)

The main effect of the rear suspension is to make the car much less predictable, not only in driving, but especially when trying to tune the car. For example, lowering a panhard rod on a “real” suspension moves the roll center farther away from the car’s center of gravity. This increases the lever arm the CG has on the suspension and effectively softens the rear suspension. Softening the rear suspension is normally supposed to help with oversteer.

In the case of the Mustang, however, lowering the panhard rod increases the distance between the roll center defined by the panhard and the conflicting roll center defined by the upper control arms. This increased conflict means more bind in the suspension which would tend to increase oversteer.

So are these two effects just overriding each other? Not really. The roll rate defined by the panhard rod roll center is force based and linear with the cornering force that the suspension is seeing. The binding force is displacement based. The more the car rolls, the more bind there is. And the binding force is going to be more of an exponential function. Twice as much roll is likely to result in say four times as much of a binding force.

In reality, the lowering of the panhard rod is likely to have the predicted effect while the car is in transition but the binding force effect will take over once the car has rolled enough for it’s force to go exponential. This could mean increased understeer on turn in and corner exit with a tendency towards oversteer in steady state cornering and especially over bumps while under full cornering load. (Sound like a Mustang to anyone???)

The same is true for spring rates. Softening the rear springs helps with oversteer but not if actually results in more body roll.

The Mustang can certainly be tuned to be fast and realistically controllable but if you are looking at traditional books and philosophies for tuning, you are likely to be very confused and going in the wrong direction.


Based on my first cut, to solve some of this, I would look at increasing the overall spring rates on Mustang to see what could be made to work. For example, try maybe 1400 lb/in springs on the front and say 300-350 lb/in springs on the rear. Now those rates on a CMC car are likely to make it almost undriveable by me but I bet my teammate Chris would eat it up.

All the proper suspension design and tuning books state that you should run the softest rate possible that still keeps the car off the bump stops. This makes the car easier to drive and more compliant over bumps. In our case, we don’t have a proper suspension design. The stiffer rates would allow us to run a much lower ride height without worrying about hitting the bump stops or the encountering the negative effects that ride height has on the roll centers in the front. In the rear, the decreased overall roll the car would see not only lessens the amount of roll bind significantly (remember the exponential force curve), it changes the ratio of bind force to spring force. The inherent bind becomes a significantly smaller percentage of the suspensions effective stiffness, so traditional tuning methods would work much better.

All win-win stuff… if you are good enough to drive it. I have some interesting Formula 1 telemetry data from a while back. Michael Shumacher liked to set up his car about twice as stiff as his teammate Berger. That has some hugely beneficial implications in a world where ride height and aero dominate over any suspension geometry effects. Despite this difference in stiffness, there is a hugely noticeable difference in the smoothness of Shumachers G-traces especially over transitions. Berger is an amazing driver (as is anyone at the Formula 1 level) but Shumacher is a driving god.

I would like to see an option to fix the quadra bind rear suspension on a CMC car (I’m no driving god) but things certainly aren’t broke as they sit.


Richard P.

[mitchntx]

In non-engineering terms ...

In the quadra-bind suspension, travel increases bind. A fix is limit travel with spring rate and the inherent bind becomes less significant.

NOW ...
- lower tire pressures to help soften/absorb the bumps

- use sway bars (if the powers that be allow mounting the SN95 sway) to reduce body roll

- maximize track width, using the added distance between the contact patch and the spring perch as a lever on the spring

[evarner]

Problem solved.

For practice take a knife..stand it up on edge and balance yourself on it with one foot while being subjected to 2+ lateral G's.

Not trying to be unrealistic here but out of the two options (one legal and the other totally insane) from this whole thread it would be criminal for anyone to subject themselves to the high spring rate solution. I wouldn't want to be on the track knowing that setup was out there for fear of a 3100lbs projectile is anything but in control.

I like a challenge but I'm not suicidal.

An option for sure...but another bandaid IMHO.

Dangit.. I'm usually a positive person or least thought I was. :(

[GlennCMC70]

i dont think Richard is way off. i know of a 4th gen that is running 1200 lb fronts. thats almost double what i run. that car turned a single faster lap than me by a full second at Mid Ohio. his rear rates are in the 300-350 range - well more than i run. do i think he's crazy for running those rates? hell yes! has he done well w/ that set-up? for sure. so just as a set rate is not for everyone, it may be the only way to get the car to work.
and for 2008, one of the things i'm going to try is running the monster rates mentioned above to see how it can be made to work. will i have to re-learn what the car wants in relation to turn-in and camber? sure. but i cant be so closed minded that my set-up is the "hot set-up" and not be willing to try new stuff. if i do, i may just as well wait for 2009 and beg for rules relief.

at this point, i really want to drive a Fox CMC car come the Oct event.

[mitchntx]

Problem solved.

For practice take a knife..stand it up on edge and balance yourself on it with one foot while being subjected to 2+ lateral G's.

Not trying to be unrealistic here but out of the two options (one legal and the other totally insane) from this whole thread it would be criminal for anyone to subject themselves to the high spring rate solution. I wouldn't want to be on the track knowing that setup was out there for fear of a 3100lbs projectile is anything but in control.

I like a challenge but I'm not suicidal.

An option for sure...but another bandaid IMHO.

Dangit.. I'm usually a positive person or least thought I was. :(

What's does it matter if it's a "band-aid" or a "solution" if the result is the same.

Cody ... what spring rates you running? ;) Jeff?

Eric, you and I raced side by side, me running 900/300 on a non-bind rear suspension. Nick Steel is 1200/350, IIRC ... Jason Swindle has run 1300/400 before.

No offense, Eric, but until you try it, don't scoff. Scoffing shows your reluctance to listen to anything other than what you have fixated in your mind. Open it up, brother.

So laid out before you is an avenue to make you more competitive.

[Todd Covini]

Qual/race lap times are typically less than .499 of a second of each other for the top 5-6 cars.

If the Fox rear is binding as bad as everyone says then:
a) Mustangs shouldn't be near as close to the Camaros as they are and
b) If we fix the bind, then the Mustangs will clearly have an advantage because they will surely be faster than just a fraction of a second

(Then we're back to the Camaro's whining about parity.)

This is called Camaro-Mustang CHALLENGE for a reason...accept the challenge!!!! :lol:

My suspicion is that some of the behind the scene sources of information have tried to test and improve this CMC suspension and were unsuccessful. While they may be excellent Mustang resources/drivers, my fear is that a few days of testing and not being able to adapt has led to a perception that "it can't be done". (I know because I ran around the track as they ran off the track multiple times and wrestled with that rear suspension during test days.)

There is an art and a science to racing...and sometimes the art can supercede the science. (RP...I am not the anti-Christ! :lol: )

So....maybe it's time to revisit the allowed Mustang Modifications...maybe it's not. We've got to try to remain true to our school. Low cost, factory suspension, minimal mods. (Remember the "P's"?)

A few folks made the comment that "someone" couldn't make a torque arm work years ago, and so we're all penalized now. Give us some credit...that "someone's" name was Bruce, Chuck, Doug, Jay & Dave...or to the rest of you guys they're AKA Griggs Racing, Maximum Motorsports, Global West, Ground Control & Eibach. Our top CMC drivers all had strong support from those guys and I have to think they "thought about" running a softer rear spring after putting a torque arm on. (Unless that concept discovery is a LAWM first! :roll: GMAFB)

Bottom line is this guys. Champions come and Champions go. Every year, there's angst that the Champion "has got it all goin' on".

Funny how the short-comings of the Mustang only arise during the off-years when they aren't winning.

Funny how other regions where the Mustang IS winning it's not being discussed.

I fear the day that Mitch or Morgan win a championship someday because only then will we learn of the superior aerodynamic qualities of the supreme Pontiacs as we all take up our torches to march into town and seek ways to bring them down to mere mortal Mustang and Camaro standards. (Remember the NASCAR angle iron on all the roofs!?!?!? :cry: )

Anyway...I'm being sarcastic, just fun'n and trying to bring things to a low roar. We'll look into it...compare regional results...and address it from a big picture and maybe even revisit the past and talk with our founding fathers about our previous findings. We're not that pig-headed and we recognize that things do change...but recognize that all of these same debates have been reviewed in the past.

Keep the faith...keep up the discussions...and fight nice so we can all continue to have great mini-vacations on our race weekends! :D :D :D

-=- Todd

[AI#97]

Glenn, the torque arms that are currently sold for mustangs VERY specifically require MUCH higher spring rates and are sold as such from both manufacturers....trust us when we say someone has figured out how to make it work. If you were to go read a lot on the Maximum Motorsport's web page you would learn a great deal of what is already figured out on Mustangs....the problem is they are really just a terrible platform for handling!!! :cry:

[RichardP]

I know several CMC drivers who I believe would do just fine at the spring rates I listed. It's likely that they wouldn't like it, especially at first but it's really not that hard to get used to.

As a bit of trivia, the coil-over springs Chris and I were running in AI last year have a theoretical mathmatic equivalent of 1800 lb/in for a spring in the conventional location. (Theoretical because the effective motion ratios are hard to determine and the conventional spring location loads up the ball joint and control arm bushings adding a hard to quantify friction load to the CMC legal suspension.)

Chris kept urging me to go a bit stiffer because he thought it would help out the aero but I was hesitant and it turned out that we spent way too much of our time fixing and maintaining which left precious little time or money for development...

[I also have no idea what the motion ratios are for the GM cars. Comparing their spring rates to Mustang rates is likely quite irrelevant.]


Richard P.

[mitchntx]

[I also have no idea what the motion ratios are for the GM cars. Comparing their spring rates to Mustang rates is likely quite irrelevant.]


Richard P.

Fair enough ... What are the Mustang stock spring rates?

On a 4th gen its somewhere around 350/100. So we can compare in relative terms.

[Todd Covini]

<<back on the soapbox>>

...another snapshot of CMC history...

A long time ago, in a far far away land, Jonathan Bomarito raced in CMC and at every event, he brought along with him the entire Maximum Motorsports crew. It was essentially a MM factory team. They tested 1, sometimes 2 days before each event. They had clipboards...they had crewmen....they had fresh tires all the time...they "had it all goin' on"...and they waxed the field (including Nick Steel and the other F-bodies) by nearly a second at each and every event.

The horrible Fox-body Mustang rear suspension was never brought up.

But...he was a Champion and as such, there had to be SOMETHING that he had to get him where he was on the lap charts and so we now have rules which for ram-air scrutiny, timing scrutiny, fuel pressure scrutiny and others. The Bomarito Championship era was chalked up by most as unbeatable support, vast resources and just sheer skill within the confines of the rules and the platform he chose.

All the Mustang tuners will agree that a torque arm will work, but only in conjunction with a revised front suspension. Without a full suspension package working in unision...it's just peanut butter, and not the pb&j sandwich we all love. (For some you guys, Fluff is required too.)

Anyway...don't get me wrong. The Mustang tuners would LOVE to see a torque arm, panhard bar and front coil-over k-member suspension on the fox-body CMC Mustang because IT WORKS!!! But guess what....with all that stuff it's also called AMERICAN IRON...and not within the principles & philosophy of CMC. Torque arms will raise the price of entry into CMC, which is a negative when trying to grow a series.

All things to consider & ponder.

Good nite, Irene. :lol:

-=- Todd

[Todd Covini]

After 6 pages of posts, did we ever get an answer to " Will it drive differently with a welded cage?" :wink:

[evarner]

Problem solved.

For practice take a knife..stand it up on edge and balance yourself on it with one foot while being subjected to 2+ lateral G's.

Not trying to be unrealistic here but out of the two options (one legal and the other totally insane) from this whole thread it would be criminal for anyone to subject themselves to the high spring rate solution. I wouldn't want to be on the track knowing that setup was out there for fear of a 3100lbs projectile is anything but in control.

I like a challenge but I'm not suicidal.

An option for sure...but another bandaid IMHO.

Dangit.. I'm usually a positive person or least thought I was. :(

What's does it matter if it's a "band-aid" or a "solution" if the result is the same.

Cody ... what spring rates you running? ;) Jeff?

Eric, you and I raced side by side, me running 900/300 on a non-bind rear suspension. Nick Steel is 1200/350, IIRC ... Jason Swindle has run 1300/400 before.

No offense, Eric, but until you try it, don't scoff. Scoffing shows your reluctance to listen to anything other than what you have fixated in your mind. Open it up, brother.

So laid out before you is an avenue to make you more competitive.

No offense taken at all. Each of us have opinions and thoughts on the subject. I've at least learned that and keep things on the up and up. :D

I would definitely like to try driving a car that was really difficult to drive just to see if I have what it takes to make it competitive. However, if the car was able to match the lap times set by the really fast GM cars then that would set the bar and learning curve for other drivers to a point where it might not be possible (no offense guys!!). Would making a combination like that be in the spirit of the series? Challenge yes, but c'mon. lol

On the other hand if you have a setup that is cost effective and would be fun to drive for all drivers, it would seem that would make sense since the series is built around fun. :D Ok ok... carried away again.

One Mustang driver was quoted as saying that if he gets time to tune and tweak on his Mustang he would definitely think it would be able to get within 1 sec. of the leaders. Uh.. hmmm...that's like 10th place. lol

Rules are rules and I don't see them changing anytime soon. Someone please try RP's theory on a CMC Mustang to see how it compares in lap times to the records set by GM's.

/cheers

[RichardP]

All the Mustang tuners will agree that a torque arm will work, but only in conjunction with a revised front suspension. Without a full suspension package working in unision...it's just peanut butter, and not the pb&j sandwich we all love. (For some you guys, Fluff is required too.)



Not only do I not agree that you need the front stuff, I certainly don't believe all the tuners think that either.

Now having a tuner tell me that so I buy all the stuff for the front is a much different deal. :)

Richard P.

[RichardP]

After 6 pages of posts, did we ever get an answer to " Will it drive differently with a welded cage?" :wink:


Ummm... My answer was way back on page 1. You were the next one to reply. :roll:


And, to answer your original question, I’ll put $5 on pretty good oversteer with the new cage.


Richard P.

[RichardP]

All the Mustang tuners will agree that a torque arm will work, but only in conjunction with a revised front suspension.


Just to pound back a littler harder on this absurdity, every serious American Sedan Mustang has a torque arm or three link rear suspension. They are not allowed to change the k-member, front control arms, or go to coil-over front springs.

I know you are trying to be diplomatic and keep the unrest to a dull roar, but really...


Richard P.

[Todd Covini]

Ahhh...so we want to follow the enormous success and enjoy the continued growth of the A-Sedan series by allowing additional modifications year after year at the demands of the racers who finished 2-10 :?:

OK....I think I see your point now.

Thanks for your input.
We value your opinion.
This will be taken into consideration.

:D :D :D

-=- T

[Todd Covini]

After 6 pages of posts, did we ever get an answer to " Will it drive differently with a welded cage?" :wink:


Ummm... My answer was way back on page 1. You were the next one to reply. :roll:


And, to answer your original question, I’ll put $5 on pretty good oversteer with the new cage.


Richard P.

...OK...THAT was a rhetorical question!!!

[RichardP]

Ahhh...so we want to follow the enormous success and enjoy the continued growth of the A-Sedan series by allowing additional modifications year after year at the demands of the racers who finished 2-10 :?:

OK....I think I see your point now.

Thanks for your input.
We value your opinion.
This will be taken into consideration.

:D :D :D

-=- T


Nice deflect. :roll:

Didn't work. :D

Your earlier statement is still absurd... :D :D

Richard P.

[Todd Covini]

Deflect??? I don't think so....

Posted minutes ago on the CMC website "For Sale" section:

We just bought an SCCA A Sedan Camaro that's been in storage for 3 years (not much A Sedan racing on the West Coast) and it's currently being converted to a budget CMC racer...it has some goodies like a fuel cell, full car fire system, full welded in cage, all new belts, etc, rebuilt engine in progress with spec CMC cam, manifold, carb, rebuilt Koni DA's, new Torsen T2R and 3.42's and rear axles, cambered rear, custom manifold back exhaust, 1LE brakes with super ducting, aluminum radiator, camber plates, remote battery in rear, weight without driver 3012#, ballast plates available, brake bias control in cockpit...etc, etc...we're replacing all the bits and pieces like bushings, wires, fluids, etc that we do before every competition season...$12,500 with a new set of Toyos ready to race in the top 5...we'll chassis dyno tune the car to maximum allowable figures and deliver it ready for you to add gas, check the tire pressures and go race...RP

[Cody Powell]

Mitch I don't know if it is still relevent, but my fronts are 900 and rears are 275.

[Todd Covini]

Cody,
You didn't have to call Glenn to find that out.
Mitch & Glenn talk quite frequently, I'm sure he told him.
:wink:

-=- Todd

[RichardP]

Deflect??? I don't think so...

Ummmm... yea. I didn't say we should adopt AS philosophy or even any of their rules. Clearly that is absurd and would be against almost everything CMC stands for. How AS is run has nothing to do with what I was saying.

I was just giving more examples of why your statement is absurd. You don't need aftermarket front ends to make torque arms work on a CMC Mustang.

I don't think CMC is broke and I'm quite certain we are going to get along just fine even though torque arms are almost certainly not going to be allowed on CMC Mustangs.

Your statement is still patently absurd.

Richard P.

[Cody Powell]

Another thing and I am not sure if this helps or hurts the parity argument,
I am running 900 fronts, Glenn is somewhere around 600 and Nick Steel is running 1200 pounders. Correct me if I am wrong but that is a huge difference, if a 4th gen is the magic bullet why are are setups so different. Why aren't we all down at the go-fast store ordering up the Stangthrasher package.
I hate to be a smart ass but maybe this car is just better at certain tracks, for the record I got my butt handed to me by every Mustang that showed up at Hallet!
You guys and your arguements are great by the way, I am just glad you let me play along. :lol:

[RichardP]

I am running 900 fronts, Glenn is somewhere around 600 and Nick Steel is running 1200 pounders. Correct me if I am wrong but that is a huge difference


I find it quite fascinating, actually. That is a surprising difference. I guess I need to do some research to see if someone knows the motion ratio. I'd love to compare actual wheel rates with what I know of Mustangs.

Just a guess, but I believe Glenn could be faster if he got used to driving a stiffer setup.


Richard P.

[michaelmosty]

Rule change proposal:
Disallow the Stangthrasher package that Cody and the others have. :x

The above comment was made for entertainment purposes only.
Not to be combined with any other offers. Valid for a limited time.

[Boudy]

The paranoia here and at Boudy's site is/was stifling.

"WTF"

OK, I'm calling BULLSHIT! I try damn hard to stay out of the pissing matches and whining but it seems we're past that now...

I started that forum due to my frustration with the Mustang camp wining and doing nothing about it. I started it to try and get some participation in testing, tuning, development, and car prep. I also offered to buy parts and fit cars with a shared data aquisition system. I even used you and Glenn as a model example of how to go from whining to winning with hard work.

Needless to say, your PERCEPTION on this is a slap in my face for everything I've done and tried to do for this group. I say perception because you've got it all wrong. I tried to explain it to Glenn but he wasn't listening. What you see as stifling paranoia is actually peoples frustration with the stifling ego and arrogance that gets lobbed over from your side of the fence.

It's bad enough to get the shit kicked out of you on the track but then just when you're making efforts to stand on your own, the guy kicking your ass leans down to you on the ground and wispers, "Hey, can I help you get up? Oh, and FYI, my stock 5th pulls your stock 5th by 4 cars at TWS." I just can't imagine how in one's correct mind can he not realize that 5 of 6 guys would be insulted. And they were so I tried to call him on it and he went home mad.

To borrow a phrase, "I'm done here!"

[mitchntx]

I started that forum due to my frustration with the Mustang camp wining and doing nothing about it. I started it to try and get some participation in testing, tuning, development, and car prep. I also offered to buy parts and fit cars with a shared data aquisition system. I even used you and Glenn as a model example of how to go from whining to winning with hard work.


Then explain the cold reception? I didn't even bother to attempt to register based upon how Glenn was recieved ... or sent out of town, tarred and feathered.

And this was further exemplified by you personally not responding to several e-mails, both th Robert@BC!wireless and Sales@Argentlab

I know you've been busy and I know your stress level is over the top, but this was over a couple week period.

So, what am I to conclude?



Needless to say, your PERCEPTION on this is a slap in my face for everything I've done and tried to do for this group. I say perception because you've got it all wrong. I tried to explain it to Glenn but he wasn't listening. What you see as stifling paranoia is actually peoples frustration with the stifling ego and arrogance that gets lobbed over from your side of the fence.


Your perception is yours and I can't do anything about the way you interpret things.

So you are pissed at me because Glenn wasn't listening? And you see my posts in these threads as egotistical and arrogant?



It's bad enough to get the shit kicked out of you on the track but then just when you're making efforts to stand on your own, the guy kicking your ass leans down to you on the ground and wispers, "Hey, can I help you get up? Oh, and FYI, my stock 5th pulls your stock 5th by 4 cars at TWS." I just can't imagine how in one's correct mind can he not realize that 5 of 6 guys would be insulted. And they were so I tried to call him on it and he went home mad.



Are talking about me or Glenn? Cause if it's me, I don't know WTF you are talking about.

If it's Glenn, it sounds like a delivery issue. You don't like the package the message comes in.

Lemme tell you ... get past the personal BS, the sensitivity, the "my feelings are hurt", because when you want or need something, someone who cuts to the chase is invaluable. No sugar coating, straight to the point.

Glenn can be a royal PITA ... but it's my ass that gets saved more times than pained.

So open your mind and look at the prize, not the game to get there.

To borrow a phrase "Cinch it up!"

[Boudy]

OK, that's fair. We obviously don't see eye to eye on some perceptions so I'll call you so we can.

I appologize for ranting in public. I should have called to begin with.

rb

[mitchntx]

Robert, there is no reason to apologize for anything.

There is way too much posturing going on by everyone. We all need to get beyond that.

I think 2K8 is gonna be great!

[GlennCMC70]

i'm not sure how i keep getting drug into these conversations.......

i was at the Argent Forum. it was requested by other members that i not be allowed to be there. my attempts to help were viewed in a way that i didnt not intend. my presence there was causing a problem, so i left. its as simple as that. whether or not i was causing a problem is not the issue, it was viewed as such, so yes, i was tared and feathered. i have no angst against Rober over it, as he was not asking me to leave. he was asking me to do whatever it took to get along, he wanted me to stay and help. i thought it was wise to just leave. its possible other GM guys would have had a better result, its possible it was just me, and not that i drive a GM. just when i thought this thread was making a turn to the better, it takes a shit again.

[evarner]

I for one am really glad to hear that Jerry had a welded in cage installed in #17. Above everything else in this thread, I know it will be a lot safer which is comforting to know it's done. Regardless of how it handles, the main reason should be safety and everything else is secondary.

Gratz Jerry!

[GlennCMC70]

I for one am really glad to hear that Jerry had a welded in cage installed in #17. Above everything else in this thread, I know it will be a lot safer which is comforting to know it's done. Regardless of how it handles, the main reason should be safety and everything else is secondary.

Gratz Jerry!

i nominate this post for "Best Post in This Thread!".

[ShadowBolt]

I for one am really glad to hear that Jerry had a welded in cage installed in #17. Above everything else in this thread, I know it will be a lot safer which is comforting to know it's done. Regardless of how it handles, the main reason should be safety and everything else is secondary.

Gratz Jerry!


Thanks Eric!

Mitch, don't worry if you don't get a return e-mail from Robert he is not returning mine either and I KNOW he is not mad at me.

JJ

[Adam Ginsberg]

Adam ... My vibe is MY vibe.

Don't attack my ability to recieve. You can't do anything about that.

However, you can take stock of the way you send.

I'm not suggesting you change or alter anything. Just don't discount that a message sent can and does get garbled in translation.

There was no message sent, hence my comment that your "vibe" was wrong.

No one is attacking anything, Mitch. All I said was "Check your ability to read a vibe". No more, no less.

Since you mentioned my supposed message at the Nats, all I say is this - you have no idea what I was dealing with that week/weekend, personally. AAMOF, JB was all over me to get my head in the game, but there was simply too much going on to do so. Work issues, health issues with my wife, things with my kids, being gone for 10+ days, desire to get home quickly after the Nats were over, not performing on track as well as I'd hoped, car issues.....you name it.

The very last thing on my mind was trying to figure out if you were "clandestinely" trying to sink the Ford camp. In the time I've known you, there's never been a thought that you would try to do something like that. Please.....get over it already.

Your "vibe" is your "vibe". Fine. Your "receiver" is out of whack. Based on your feelings about the Nats, and Boudy's site, just as a few examples, it's clear that it is.

'Nuff said.

[donovan]

I for one am really glad to hear that Jerry had a welded in cage installed in #17. Above everything else in this thread, I know it will be a lot safer which is comforting to know it's done. Regardless of how it handles, the main reason should be safety and everything else is secondary.

Gratz Jerry!

i nominate this post for "Best Post in This Thread!".

I second that... :P

I was very happy to hear #17 has a welded in cage!

DD

[mitchntx]

Mitch, don't worry if you don't get a return e-mail from Robert he is not returning mine either and I KNOW he is not mad at me.

JJ

Now THAT'S funny, right there ... I don't care who ya are. :lol:

[AllZWay]

AI/CMC knows drama. :lol:

[jeffburch]

My driver coaching services MAY be for hire for the last regional event.
You can even use my radios.
Pay my gas.

PM me.

Seriously,

jb

[donovan]

AI/CMC knows drama. :lol:

http://www.moviewavs.com/0095461785/MP3S/TV_Shows/Law_And_Order/logavel.mp3

[ShadowBolt]

My driver coaching services MAY be for hire for the last regional event.
You can even use my radios.
Pay my gas.

PM me.

Seriously,

jb


If your talking to me, I may have the best coach a driver of #17 could have at MSRH. Ok not DW, but the next best :wink: Most of all I need seat time, seat time, seat time. Thanks for the offer though champ!

JJ

[Todd Covini]

Ummm...I have a Mustang.
Can I be invited to the reindeer games. :cry:

[AI#97]

Ummm...I have a Mustang.
Can I be invited to the reindeer games. :cry:

I thought you had a bent ranchero???


I am sorry I am not more familiar with the CMC rules but I pose this question.

If you were to run wheel rates similar to what we run in AI, or HIGHER on the CMC car, what shock is currently available and legal to control that stiff of a spring? If you had infinitely adjustable Motons or Penskes and spring rates to correspond would the car be competitive or undriveable?

I could be completely going in the wrong direction but I would love to see a fox with spring rates that limit suspension travel and body roll to a point where camber settings might only be -1 so you could improve braking, retain cornering grip and with Legal Aero front and REAR put the car WELL in front of an F-body with a competant driver.

As for making the 4 link work, has anyone ever tried putting bushings in only one of the upper arms and say pipe foam in the other? Sort of a crappy 3 link but the bind is gone. raise spring rates, increase dampening and start playing with front rates and swaybars.....?

Maybe I am just expressing my tuning ignorance here but for as long as people have been tracking mustangs....someone has tried this right?! :lol:

[RichardP]

someone has tried this right?!


I have the parts in my toolbox. Do you want to borrow them?


Richard P.

[Adam Ginsberg]

I am sorry I am not more familiar with the CMC rules but I pose this question.

If you were to run wheel rates similar to what we run in AI, or HIGHER on the CMC car, what shock is currently available and legal to control that stiff of a spring? If you had infinitely adjustable Motons or Penskes and spring rates to correspond would the car be competitive or undriveable?

Shock costs are limited to $700 per pair in CMC. Section 8.36.6. Motons, Penskes, and the like are out of the question in CMC.

Matt, you might find it beneficial to spend ~30 minutes or so to read the CMC rules so that when you post something, you'll actually understand what's going on.

[GlennCMC70]

its not the brand of the shock that allows it to control the spring rate. its having the correct valving rate in the shock. you don’t need Motons, Penskie, or bla, bla, bla.
in 2005 (and 2 events into 2006) i ran OEM replacement Bilstien HD's. they are designed for OEM spring rates (300-115 f/r). i ran those w/ 700/225 to 250 rates. i was still running top times. so get the springs under the car, then work the shock. it was amazing how much my car settled down after installing the "racing" shocks under the front. i also have them valved for a stiffer rate than i run. so having the exact valving for the rate you run is a non issue.

and another note. OEM replacement Bilstien shocks are a non-rebuildable type shock (sealed body). there are shops all over the country that can open them up and valve them for whatever rate springs you want. Bistien will give you this info over the phone. the average Joe cannot open up a Bilstien shock and do this type work themselves. but there are plenty of shops who can. in fact, i think each and everyone here could sent in their shock and have them re-valved for whatever they wanted.

the shock i run cost $160 each from Day Motorsports. i only run those on the front, the rears are Koni DA's.

the point? the point is, shocks are not a reason to not run ANY rate spring you want on a Ford or GM. shocks are the fine tuning part of dialing in a set-up. getting the spring rates right is the finding the set-up part.

[Todd Covini]

Be nice Adam....Matt was being constructive and just offering to the conversation. He had some valid points and it's probably very likely for an AI competitor to offer 2 cents w/o having to read the CMC rules.

-=- T

[GlennCMC70]

Todd, can we sell Adam to the SE region? or trade him for Jerry? how about we pay them to take him?

he's raced more in that one than ours, i was just a thought.






it was a joke Adam. your an original Tx CMC guy all the way. 8)

[jeffburch]

you don’t need Motons, Penskie, or bla, bla, bla.



Don't mind me.
Just taking notes.

jb

[Alien]

Just out of total curiosity... how much will the proposed changes cost a fox driver to outfit the car wik a TQ arm, new springs etc?

[Al Fernandez]

RP: I believe the 4th gen front end's ratio is 0.581 or thereabouts

Cody: no, you're wrong, that is not a big difference :lol:

[AI#97]

Matt, you might find it beneficial to spend ~30 minutes or so to read the CMC rules so that when you post something, you'll actually understand what's going on.

I read them once 3 years ago and threw them in the trash when I realized I had already gone too far with Mods! :lol: Why would I read them in detail again...? Geesh!

So, $700/pair? Does that include revalving costs that you MAY or MAY NOT have done?

I realize you don't need to buy Motons to get the dampening they provide because you can always revalve what you got. I was just comparing what A sedan folks have spent on revalving shocks...some $4k for a pair...to the cost of Motons or similar which are someone infinitely adjustable.


Glenn....you made me laugh!!! Thanks!

[GlennCMC70]

what is a stock Mustang GT spring rate?

[AI#97]

what is a stock Mustang GT spring rate?

Progressive rate fronts... 350-450.
Linear rears depending on model.... 210-230.

When you go to a torque arm with springs in stock location it bumps to 390 and coil overs go down to 325-350 or so.

Front coil overs....475...depends on the driver's preference and car setup.

[mitchntx]

I was just comparing what A sedan folks have spent on revalving shocks...some $4k for a pair...to the cost of Motons or similar which are someone infinitely adjustable.


My front shocks can be re-valved for $100 plus shipping costs.

It pays to shop around as some shops are grossly over priced at this.

[RichardP]

I realize you don't need to buy Motons to get the dampening they provide because you can always revalve what you got


Just to be clear, it's of course way more complicated than that. With revalving, you can certainly get a force/velocity point on about any shock to match a corresponding point on a Moton shock. That really isn’t the point.

What is important about high end shocks is the dampening curve. The curve can be progressive, linear, or digressive. If you take say a digressive curve, you have the slope of the low speed valving, the position of the knee point, and the slope of the high speed valving. And of course the curves for compression and extension are nothing alike because they are controlling very different masses and have very different goals.

Beyond the shape of the curves, you have the consistency and durability of the components themselves. The shock still has to work when the fluid inside gets brutally hot and wants to foam. Foamy shock fluid doesn’t work any better than boiling brake fluid. One of the ways to keep the fluid a fluid is to add gas pressure. Adding this pressure changes other characteristics of the shock and adds a spring force to the shock. Proper gas pressure is a delicate compromise.

The pimpy shocks aren’t better just because they look cool… :)


Richard P.

[Todd Covini]

My shocks are yellow now.
I liked the blue ones I had before too.

[Al Fernandez]

Mine are a sort of black and white texture over a base of yellow. Someone wrapped them in newspaper while the paint was still wet :lol:

[Todd Covini]

http://scca.com/documents/resultfiles/5643_AS_Qual_1.pdf

The torque-armed A-Sedan Mustangs were a full second off of the Camaros at the Runoffs today.

http://musicmog.com/blogs/pics/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/care_free.jpg

[GlennCMC70]

top 20:
8 3rd gens
11 Mustangs (not sure how this breaks down by Fox, SN95, SN197.....etc.)
1 4th gen!!!!!! 0 in the top 5 and there were 4 in the field of 31.

[GlennCMC70]

and to note, the only 4th gen in the top 20 was driven by John Heinricy!!!!!!! if you dont know, thats a big name in SCCA T1/T2 racing.

[chris-CMC#35]

My shocks are yellow now.
I liked the blue ones I had before too.

Mine are blue AND yellow. :D They say Bilstein on them. They mean the world to me.

But in the "seriously" vein, this thread is really interesting. Big thanks to everyone who contributed...even if I don't understand some of it.


-chris

[ShadowBolt]

http://scca.com/documents/resultfiles/5643_AS_Qual_1.pdf

The torque-armed A-Sedan Mustangs were a full second off of the Camaros at the Runoffs today.


Are you saying that even with a torque arm the Stangs can compete?


JJ

[Adam Ginsberg]

Todd - comparing A/S to CMC is like comparing apples to light poles. You should know better than to inject something like that into this discussion.

The A/S information is irrelevant WRT the CMC class.

[Todd Covini]

Just thought I'd throw another irrelevant fact out there. :wink:

[marshall_mosty]

Todd - comparing A/S to CMC is like comparing apples to light poles. You should know better than to inject something like that into this discussion.

The A/S information is irrelevant WRT the CMC class.

A few points to ponder...

Vipers are probably faster than Mustangs, regardless of torque arms... :D

Welded-in cages are probably better than paper mache cages.

Cookies-n-Cream is better than plain vanilla

...............

[mitchntx]

Todd - comparing A/S to CMC is like comparing apples to light poles. You should know better than to inject something like that into this discussion.

The A/S information is irrelevant WRT the CMC class.

I misunderstood Todd's post. I would have thought A-Sedan prepped Mustangs would have competed against A-Sedan prepped GMs in SCCA.

I agree, Adam. Making CMC prepped GMs compete against A-sedan prepped Mustangs is really screwed up.

[Todd Covini]

Here are a few more.

+ I got to work today at 7AM.
+ My boss got to work at 7:45AM.
+ Our admin arrived around 9AM.

Therefore...I clearly drive the fastest car and am the best driver.
My boss doesn't know what she's doing.
Our admin must have had car trouble and she's unreliable as all get out.

+++

I'm sorry for being sarcastic guys....but I watched the entire Nationals race from the top 3 Mustangs perspective over the weekend. Landing on a conclusion based upon the finish from that Nationals race is about as accurate as my work situation above and the A/S race that we don't know any facts on.

The fast Mustangs at Nationals were:
a) held up by a Camaro
b) battling for position the whole time
c) making mistakes, judgement calls, on-track decisions that didn't pan out, 2 wheels off, etc

...and this morning?
a) I live farther away, have the slower car...just left early.
b) My boss has a faster car and lives closer (no she's not a better driver)
c) OK...the admin's unreliable

I should have left it alone but after seeing the A-Sedan results I wanted to jump on that "Mustang horse" and ride it too!!!
:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

[jeffburch]

31 cars.
AS still has more cars than either AI or CMC at the big race.

jb

[Todd Covini]

31 cars.
AS still has more cars than either AI or CMC at the big race.

jb

Now that's a takeaway and something to work on, Jeff.
I noted that too.

[GlennCMC70]

what about T2?

[Todd Covini]

what about T2?

Nah...I'm not a big fan of Arnold.
But, again, that's irrelevant. 8)
http://www.cdaccess.com/gifs/shared/front/large/t2.jpg

[RichardP]

Just thought I'd throw another irrelevant fact out there. :wink:


If you want to go there, in the interest of parity, AS Fox Mustangs are allowed to be 200# lighter than their SN95 or GM counterparts... :wink:


Richard P.

[AllZWay]

[quote=Adam Ginsberg]Cookies-n-Cream is better than plain vanilla

...............

I like Vanilla better. :P

[evarner]

With the downward spiral this thread has taken we can draw the following conclusions.

1. The directors really don't care at this point and will make every attempt at misdirecting any logical or reasonable requests and/or recommendations from well respected community members.

2. The rules will never change while current management is in-place.

3. Comparing lap results mean absolutely nothing when comparing actual capabilities by the different platforms.

4. As long as everyone is content with the way things are, don't bother reading 1-3.

IMHO and .02

[donovan]

Nobody wants my opinion... I can promise you that!!!

DD :oops:

[NASA13]

settle down internet warriors.
PM sent

[mitchntx]

I have a cat.

[AI#97]

It would be really cool for Burch to chime in with his "goobers" comments!! I always get a chuckle when I hear that!!!

[NASA13]

I have a cat.

poor cat, its been beat to death, or was it a horse?

[GlennCMC70]

Nobody wants my opinion... I can promise you that!!!

DD :oops:

i would. email it to me if you want.

[mitchntx]

It would be really cool for Burch to chime in with his "goobers" comments!! I always get a chuckle when I hear that!!!

He now charges folks for those. 8)

[mitchntx]

With the downward spiral this thread has taken we can draw the following conclusions.

1. The directors really don't care at this point and will make every attempt at misdirecting any logical or reasonable requests and/or recommendations from well respected community members.

2. The rules will never change while current management is in-place.

3. Comparing lap results mean absolutely nothing when comparing actual capabilities by the different platforms.

4. As long as everyone is content with the way things are, don't bother reading 1-3.

IMHO and .02

All is right with the world, once again. For a while there, I thought hell had frozen over.

[GlennCMC70]

Todd, you gonna take that from Eric? :shock:

[jeffburch]

Who?
:twisted:

jb

[Boudy]

I'm lost... Did Jerry's new cage make Todd's boss late for work? Or did Corey's horse beat Mitch's cat to death?

rb

[michaelmosty]

I have a cat.
I don't want to see it. :lol:

I crack myself up. :P

[Wirtz]

I have a cat.

poor cat, its been beat to death, or was it a horse?

Me thinks it was a Mustang....

[ShadowBolt]

I'm lost... Did Jerry's new cage make Todd's boss late for work? Or did Corey's horse beat Mitch's cat to death?

rb


That is funny.


JJ

[Adam Ginsberg]

With the downward spiral this thread has taken we can draw the following conclusions.

1. The directors really don't care at this point and will make every attempt at misdirecting any logical or reasonable requests and/or recommendations from well respected community members.

2. The rules will never change while current management is in-place.

3. Comparing lap results mean absolutely nothing when comparing actual capabilities by the different platforms.

4. As long as everyone is content with the way things are, don't bother reading 1-3.

IMHO and .02

As much as it bothers me to continue to drag this thread in the wrong direction, comments like this bother me even more.

You've made your point over, and over, and over Eric. We all know you want coil-overs, aftermarket k-members, etc. You can run ALL of those parts - in AI. They are not permitted in CMC, nor should they be. AAMOF, isn't that why you went CMC racing in the first place??? Low cost, stock parts, close competition. It's exactly why CMC has been successful.

When you say things like this:


Seems like it would be cheaper to allow a few bolt-on parts that will dramatically change (for the better) the handling of a Fox body or SN-95 and have better tuning capabilities. Yeah, some testing will be required but at least there would be greater benefit from it.

It's very clear you have no clue about "the slipperly slope" that big rules changes bring. Allowing coil-overs and such on Mustangs will drag us into A/S territory - something the majority of CMC drivers are simply not interested in ( myself included ).

Is there a chassis disparity? Possibly. IMO, the disparity is more between the Fox3 and SN95 chassis than the 3rd/4th gen cars and the Fords.

You won 2 championships, drove very well, then acted like a spoiled 3 year old when you realized it wasn't going to be easy anymore. Enough, Eric. It's over.

Get a CMC car, come out and race. If not, maybe it's time you found something else to do. Knitting, perhaps?

[GlennCMC70]

..... maybe it's time you found something else to do. Knitting, perhaps?
i once overheard Lisa tell someone to take up shopping dressed as Mary Poppins......


as quickly as Matt White was banned from here for his issues over a short period of time, i'm shocked it hasnt happened again. not that i'm saying anyone who posted in this thread should be, i'm just saying.

as for AI..... i think David D proved it can be done well w/ a limited budget. i'm sure its more exspensive than CMC, but i do not think its a big money class like i once thought. since Nationals, i've given AI alot more thought. in fact, it may be in my 2009 plans - possibly. i'll need to find me an LS1/6/2 motor.

[donovan]

[quote=Adam Ginsberg]as for AI..... i think David D proved it can be done well w/ a limited budget. i'm sure its more exspensive than CMC, but i do not think its a big money class like i once thought. since Nationals, i've given AI alot more thought. in fact, it may be in my 2009 plans - possibly. i'll need to find me an LS1/6/2 motor.

Glenn, I think you would do very well in AI...

DD

[mitchntx]

Hey ... I posted something "quote-worthy"!!!!!

[AI#97]

..... maybe it's time you found something else to do. Knitting, perhaps?
i once overheard Lisa tell someone to take up shopping dressed as Mary Poppins......


as quickly as Matt White was banned from here for his issues over a short period of time, i'm shocked it hasnt happened again. not that i'm saying anyone who posted in this thread should be, i'm just saying.

as for AI..... i think David D proved it can be done well w/ a limited budget. i'm sure its more exspensive than CMC, but i do not think its a big money class like i once thought. since Nationals, i've given AI alot more thought. in fact, it may be in my 2009 plans - possibly. i'll need to find me an LS1/6/2 motor.

Hey now!!! Don't drag me into this!!!

Glenn, AI is not any more expensive than CMC for race weekends, just the initial buy in. Frankly, I would like to see you move up to AI and I think Boudy will chime in with a great ol' phrase for me! :lol:

Either way this thread has gone way off topic, back and then a million miles the other direction. time to close it before someone's panty bunch gets them banned...

[marshall_mosty]

"I was tellin' Glenn......."]

[Todd Covini]

I agree.
This thread has reached the limit of it's usefulness and it can only go downhill from here. So...before someone get's bent out of shape or banned...let's lock it down.

(I don't seem to have moderator rights to edit my posts or lock threads, so can someone pls lock it down?)

I did try to inject a little humor and keep things lighthearted. All kidding aside, We will review ALL rules revision requests and their justifications for why they were proposed, as is done every year. A consistency check among the other regions will occur to see if the rule revision request bears merit, and if it does...there could be some tweaking of the rules.

-=- Todd