Rule Proposal/change: Disallowance of rear wings in CMC

[y5e06]

I would like to propose removing the allowance of rear wings in CMC. Based on the ideal of the class, and accounting all the other current allowed performance & visual modifications, I feel the allowance for CMC(2) cars to bolt on air foils and wings does not fit into the spirt of the class.

Propose change to rule
8.5.4. Any rear spoiler (rear wing)] may be used...

8.5.4. Any rear spoiler may be used. No air foils, wings, or similar devices are allowed...


I know this will affect a few current competitors however, it would require removal of a given modification and not open up the need to fabricate, buy, or otherwise aquire a new part or item to maintain competitiveness. The appearance of CMC cars still follow very closely to those as they rolled out of the factory. The addition of these wings do not fit in this guideline. Nor do I feel this type of modification is consistent with other performance modifications allowed on the current platforms

[donovan]

:(

[NASA13]

awww dude we have to talk more often. Fulcrum Motorsports is about to hook us up on a wing.

How about this
8.5.4
Any wing may be used including airfoils and wings, so long as the competitor has an appropriate discount(hookup) on the wing to keep it within the spirit of the class.

Yeah that works better.


:D

[RichardP]

I'd have to agree with this rule change.

I believe the current rule and it's dimensional constraints is based on the Cobra R wing that came stock??? It has effectively allowed parts that are beyond what CMC stands for.

It certainly could be argued that the addition of a wing (in any shape) isn't realistically a performance benefit to CMC cars so that it's alright if we allow them. I see it a little differently. If there is a perception, especially by people new to the sport, that a wing is a "must have part" for the ultimate CMC car, then the effective cost of admission just went up. The performance benefit, or lack there of, is irrelevant.

I'm for deleting the allowance of wings (the Cobra R model included) in the CMC rules.


Richard P.

[mitchntx]

I like the wings ... especially at TWS. 8)

[michaelmosty]

I like the wings ... especially at TWS. 8) :x

[michaelmosty]

I would disagree with this change b/c of the investment that some may already have in their wing.
I would have a huge problem with the "rules-makers" allowing something one year and then disallowing it later.

What if they said for 2008, no "Cobra" parts, no aftermarket 5th gears, etc. People would have to make major adjustments to their cars in order to comply with the new rules.

[y5e06]

[quote="michaelmosty"]I would disagree with this change b/c of the investment that some may already have in their wing.
I would have a huge problem with the "rules-makers" allowing something one year and then disallowing it later.
quote]

The prededence has been set , its been done before in the interest of controling cost and mods creep. Aftermarket modular 3-piece wheels ring a bell? The weight min and 2 or 1 piece requirement for race wheels was a good decision even though at least one participant got stung. Arguing its a good idea because you already spent $XXX.XX on a particular part isn't the best interest in the class.

[donovan]

[quote=michaelmosty]I would disagree with this change b/c of the investment that some may already have in their wing.
I would have a huge problem with the "rules-makers" allowing something one year and then disallowing it later.
quote]

The prededence has been set , its been done before in the interest of controling cost and mods creep. Aftermarket modular 3-piece wheels ring a bell? The weight min and 2 or 1 piece requirement for race wheels was a good decision even though at least one participant got stung. Arguing its a good idea because you already spent $XXX.XX on a particular part isn't the best interest in the class.

and three or four cars showed up at Nationals in CMC with those said wheels... I guess they are legal now...

Yup, Forgelines in CMC!!!!

[michaelmosty]

[quote=michaelmosty]I would disagree with this change b/c of the investment that some may already have in their wing.
I would have a huge problem with the "rules-makers" allowing something one year and then disallowing it later.
quote]

Arguing its a good idea because you already spent $XXX.XX on a particular part isn't the best interest in the class.

That is like me saying I want to disallow 5th gear changes b/c I don't want to spend the money to do it on my car ($600). I have made my own decision that I am not going to spend my money on this improvement. Is that fair to all other competitors who have already spent the money and time to do this? Not at all.
Everyone has to determine where they will put their money for improvements. Put it in wings, wheels, 5th gears, extra suspension components, motor upgrades, better brakes, extra track time, etc.

[mitchntx]

I like the wings ... especially at TWS. 8)

[michaelmosty]

be quiet Mitch!! :wink:

[GlennCMC70]

i'm against them. i was raked over the coals over my air dam due to its appearance. the exact words were "it looks too AI'ish - take it off or get a DQ!".
same for this wing. it does not fit the intended appearance of this class.

but you guys keep running it. its monster drag.

[AllZWay]

I could see doing away with all wings... including my rear spoiler.

I really don't agree with the 4th gen wings that are showing up in other regions.

[michaelmosty]

i'm against them. i was raked over the coals over my air dam due to its appearance. the exact words were "it looks too AI'ish - take it off or get a DQ!".
same for this wing. it does not fit the intended appearance of this class.

but you guys keep running it. its monster drag.
It's less drag than the spoiler I previously ran.

[GlennCMC70]

i dont remember what it looked like.

[jeffburch]

So if downforce is weight added to the car, is this not weight that has to be slowed down.
I realize that goes away as you slow down.
Less weight here with a rule change.
More weight there with a wing.
Geez.
You guys can stack those things 3 high like the Red Baron all you want.
They look absolutely ridiculous.
Especially on a fox.

jb

[Rob Liebbe]

I'm with Glenn, keep runnin' the drag inducing bling and keep wonderin' why my car is pullin' you down the straight at TWS.

:D

But wait...does the wing have to be mounted on the trunk? Just think about what would Todd's car look like with a wing on top of the rollcage - Ranchero meets World of Outlaws!!! That would be cool!!!

[mitchntx]

I like the wing ... especially at TWS. 8)

[RichardP]

It's less drag than the spoiler I previously ran.


Are you sure? How do you know? Do you have data?

I ran a small spoiler along with my wing. Was that arbitrary? Do I have data???


Here is an interesting article:
http://www.jonaadland.com/NewPics2/Spoiler2.JPG
http://www.jonaadland.com/NewPics2/Spoiler1.JPG


Aero is some weird stuff. And none of that data in the article is relevant to our cars other than to demonstrate that aero is weird stuff… :D


Richard P.

[mitchntx]

I like the wings ...

[marshall_mosty]

...

[Todd Covini]

Where is Adam's air brake on that chart? :wink:

[michaelmosty]

Ya'll crack me up. :roll:

[Al Fernandez]

Dude, mustangs (especially fox coupes) have a shape that in NO WAY resembles that "typical" g.t. race car! :lol:

[Wirtz]

I say we combine the wing discussion with the weight removal idea for the Fox cars. Allow Fox3's to install any number of wing elements upside down. That way, the faster they are going, the less their car weights. Seems win - win to me.

Jeff
- has wing envy

[Adam Ginsberg]

I really don't agree with the 4th gen wings that are showing up in other regions.

This was a serious point of contention for me during a discussion last year. It's been discussed more than once that the CMC directors don't like lots of "custom fabrication" when referring to outside appearances - they want "stock appearing" (myself included). The Blane Fabrication wing installed on a few 4th gens is very nice, but, IMO, is completely outside the intent of CMC.

When a discussion started about a front airdam I wished to use, part of the argument from the director side was "it's not stock appearing". My response was, "The Blane Wing is stock appearing???". AAMOF, I even made mention of the duck bill on my car, as it's hardly "stock appearing". The response that came back was "Why are you mentioning the back of the car when we're talking about what's permitted on the front?" :roll:

TBH, I don't care either way about permitting/not permitting wings. I'd be fine with requiring their removal. However, the regular comment by the directors is "we want stock appearing". The Fulcrum Motorsports wing, the Blane wing, my ice cream scoop, etc, are hardly "stock appearing". The 2000 Cobra R wing is the only true "wing" that came from the factory on a Mustang, but that actual model is not permitted in CMC competition, so disallowing it makes sense.

Either move one direction ( true "stock appearing" ), or go the other ( away from true "stock appearing" ), but don't play somewhere in the middle. When talking about "stock appearing", you must take the entire car into consideration.

Allow stock spoilers - Saleen, Roush (both are already listed in the CMC rules allowing some items to be used), Cobra (but not the 2000 Cobra R), SVO, IROC, B4C, stock 4th gen, etc - and no more.

And for the record - I was, and still am, completely against the allowance of the Cobra engine parts.

[mitchntx]

I really don't agree with the 4th gen wings that are showing up in other regions.

This was a serious point of contention for me during a discussion last year. It's been discussed more than once that the CMC directors don't like lots of "custom fabrication" when referring to outside appearances - they want "stock appearing" (myself included). The Blane Fabrication wing installed on a few 4th gens are very nice, but, IMO, is completely outside the intent of CMC.

When a discussion started about a front airdam I wished to use, part of the argument from the director side was "it's not stock appearing". My response was, "The Blane Wing is stock appearing???". AAMOF, I even made mention of the duck bill on my car, as it's hardly "stock appearing". The response that came back was "Why are you mentioning the back of the car when we're talking about what's permitted on the front?" :roll:

TBH, I don't care either way about permitting/not permitting wings. I'd be fine with requiring their removal. However, the regular comment by the directors is "we want stock appearing". The Fulcrum Motorsports wing, the Blane wing, my ice cream scoop, etc, are hardly "stock appearing". The 2000 Cobra R wing is the only true "wing" that came from the factory on a Mustang, but that actual model is not permitted in CMC competition, so disallowing it makes sense.

Either move one direction ( true "stock appearing" ), or go the other ( away from true "stock appearing" ), but don't play somewhere in the middle. When talking about "stock appearing", you must take the entire car into consideration.

Allow stock spoilers - Saleen, Roush (both are already listed in the CMC rules allowing some items to be used), Cobra (but not the 2000 Cobra R), SVO, IROC, B4C, stock 4th gen, etc - and no more.

And for the record - I was, and still am, completely against the allowance of the Cobra engine parts.

Oh snap ... you go, girl!

[y5e06]

Allow stock spoilers - Saleen, Roush (both are already listed in the CMC rules allowing some items to be used), Cobra (but not the 2000 Cobra R), SVO, IROC, B4C, stock 4th gen, etc - and no more.

agreed!

MW, you're at what? 5 posts in this thread? yet not a single one has been beneficial to this discussion.... AT ALL. Bored at the fision facility these days?
thanks, but no thanks

[AllZWay]

I really don't agree with the 4th gen wings that are showing up in other regions.

This was a serious point of contention for me during a discussion last year. It's been discussed more than once that the CMC directors don't like lots of "custom fabrication" when referring to outside appearances - they want "stock appearing" (myself included). The Blane Fabrication wing installed on a few 4th gens are very nice, but, IMO, is completely outside the intent of CMC.

When a discussion started about a front airdam I wished to use, part of the argument from the director side was "it's not stock appearing". My response was, "The Blane Wing is stock appearing???". AAMOF, I even made mention of the duck bill on my car, as it's hardly "stock appearing". The response that came back was "Why are you mentioning the back of the car when we're talking about what's permitted on the front?" :roll:

TBH, I don't care either way about permitting/not permitting wings. I'd be fine with requiring their removal. However, the regular comment by the directors is "we want stock appearing". The Fulcrum Motorsports wing, the Blane wing, my ice cream scoop, etc, are hardly "stock appearing". The 2000 Cobra R wing is the only true "wing" that came from the factory on a Mustang, but that actual model is not permitted in CMC competition, so disallowing it makes sense.

Either move one direction ( true "stock appearing" ), or go the other ( away from true "stock appearing" ), but don't play somewhere in the middle. When talking about "stock appearing", you must take the entire car into consideration.

Allow stock spoilers - Saleen, Roush (both are already listed in the CMC rules allowing some items to be used), Cobra (but not the 2000 Cobra R), SVO, IROC, B4C, stock 4th gen, etc - and no more.

And for the record - I was, and still am, completely against the allowance of the Cobra engine parts.

You pretty much nailed it on the head... WHAT THE HECK IS STOCK APPEARING?

[mitchntx]

Fission good ... although I was at home sick yesterday.

All the other "let's change the rules because it sucks in Texas threads" are getting out of hand. So this is just a futile attempt at keeping things lite.

As far as wings go ... I like them ... especially at TWS. 8)

I think Adam summed it up well. The rules have no consistency. Not just here, but in a lot of places.

They are adamant about "stock appearing" and requiring body work and paint be asthetically appealing, yet the noses can be hacked and whacked to allow front breathers, ducting to aid cooling, etc.

Todd also made an excellent, although vailed, point ... Texas appears to be the ONLY region where the Fox cars are terribly disadvantaged.

In California, the top 3 in points are all Mustangs.
In Ohio/Indy, I see the top 2 in points are Mustangs
In the Midwest, Ginnsberg is second, just 7 points out of first place from Denton
Mid-Atlantic ... not sure what Lydic and Morris drive.
Southeast shows Urbanski and Houseman as the top 2.

So, looking at the BIG picture ... Either the GM guys in Texas are head and shoulders above the rest of the country or the rest of the country's Ford camps have it going on.

[michaelmosty]

Todd also made an excellent, although vailed, point ... Texas appears to be the ONLY region where the Fox cars are terribly disadvantaged.


I must have missed it when Todd said this. Will you please remind us.

[mitchntx]

Sure ...
http://www.aicmctexas.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1358


Another note I'd like to make is that, contrary to what some of us might believe, the AI/CMC world does not necessarily revolve around Texas. (Even though we have the National CMC Champion here.) Foregone conclusions we may have made here in Texas or even at Nats may not necessarily be the case in other regions. As such, input from our fellow series directors is important in the big picture and has to be considered.

HTH

[GlennCMC70]

I really don't agree with the 4th gen wings that are showing up in other regions.

This was a serious point of contention for me during a discussion last year. It's been discussed more than once that the CMC directors don't like lots of "custom fabrication" when referring to outside appearances - they want "stock appearing" (myself included). The Blane Fabrication wing installed on a few 4th gens are very nice, but, IMO, is completely outside the intent of CMC.

When a discussion started about a front airdam I wished to use, part of the argument from the director side was "it's not stock appearing". My response was, "The Blane Wing is stock appearing???". AAMOF, I even made mention of the duck bill on my car, as it's hardly "stock appearing". The response that came back was "Why are you mentioning the back of the car when we're talking about what's permitted on the front?" :roll:

TBH, I don't care either way about permitting/not permitting wings. I'd be fine with requiring their removal. However, the regular comment by the directors is "we want stock appearing". The Fulcrum Motorsports wing, the Blane wing, my ice cream scoop, etc, are hardly "stock appearing". The 2000 Cobra R wing is the only true "wing" that came from the factory on a Mustang, but that actual model is not permitted in CMC competition, so disallowing it makes sense.

Either move one direction ( true "stock appearing" ), or go the other ( away from true "stock appearing" ), but don't play somewhere in the middle. When talking about "stock appearing", you must take the entire car into consideration.

Allow stock spoilers - Saleen, Roush (both are already listed in the CMC rules allowing some items to be used), Cobra (but not the 2000 Cobra R), SVO, IROC, B4C, stock 4th gen, etc - and no more.

And for the record - I was, and still am, completely against the allowance of the Cobra engine parts.

i submitted my proposal to the directors last night on this. if you feel the same, send in the email. its that time of year again and the more people who give thier input on this, the better overall picture they will have from the group.
i also think the Saleen and Roush stuff should be removed also. the Ford platform is the only one allowed a "tuner" company's body parts.

anyways, send in the email.

[michaelmosty]

Sure ...
http://www.aicmctexas.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1358


Another note I'd like to make is that, contrary to what some of us might believe, the AI/CMC world does not necessarily revolve around Texas. (Even though we have the National CMC Champion here.) Foregone conclusions we may have made here in Texas or even at Nats may not necessarily be the case in other regions. As such, input from our fellow series directors is important in the big picture and has to be considered.

HTH
I guess I don't read where this says that the TX Fox cars are the only ones terribly disadvantaged.

[Adam Ginsberg]

In California, the top 3 in points are all Mustangs.
In Ohio/Indy, I see the top 2 in points are Mustangs
In the Midwest, Ginsberg is second, just 7 points out of first place from Denton
Mid-Atlantic ... not sure what Lydic and Morris drive.
Southeast shows Urbanski and Houseman as the top 2.

Don't take the points too seriously in a few regions - they aren't accurate at all. CMC-SE hasn't been updated in some time, nor has CMC-MidWest. I only did 2 races @ Iowa - King and Denton did considerably more throughout the season ( there are others, too ).

Team Hiline is an SN99 and a 4th gen, IIRC. Lydic and Morris both drive Fox3 cars, as do Urbanski and Houseman.

However, top points in each region should not be the sole means of identifying a potential disparity between chassis, as you don't know what other cars race in each region, prep level, driver experience, etc.


i submitted my proposal to the directors last night on this. if you feel the same, send in the email. its that time of year again and the more people who give thier input on this, the better overall picture they will have from the group.

One must pick and choose their battles, and I'm unsure if I wish to delve too far into this one. There are other items I'm more interested in seeing changed than the issue of wings/spoilers/tails/etc.


i also think the Saleen and Roush stuff should be removed also. the Ford platform is the only one allowed a "tuner" company's body parts.

Not to drag this off-topic, but we've been down this road before, Glenn. Like it or not, Saleen and Roush are not "tuners", they are manufacturers. SLP is a tuner, not a manufacturer, hence why it's various parts are not permitted in CMC. The "tuner" designation regarding SLP was handed down to me a few years ago by the CMC directors on the West Coast.

[AllZWay]

i submitted my proposal to the directors last night on this. if you feel the same, send in the email. its that time of year again and the more people who give thier input on this, the better overall picture they will have from the group.

One must pick and choose their battles, and I'm unsure if I wish to delve too far into this one. There are other items I'm more interested in seeing changed than the issue of wings/spoilers/tails/etc.


i also think the Saleen and Roush stuff should be removed also. the Ford platform is the only one allowed a "tuner" company's body parts.

Not to drag this off-topic, but we've been down this road before, Glenn. Like it or not, Saleen and Roush are not "tuners", they are manufacturers. SLP is a tuner, not a manufacturer, hence why it's various parts are not permitted in CMC. The "tuner" designation regarding SLP was handed down to me a few years ago by the CMC directors on the West Coast.

I don't think many would agree with that assessment.

They all are essentially the same thing. All take a manufacturers product and modify it for the manufacturer with whom they were hired by.

[Adam Ginsberg]

I don't think many would agree with that assessment.

They all are essentially the same thing. All take a manufacturers product and modify it for the manufacturer with whom they were hired by.

Saleen and Roush are manufacturers according to the USDOT.

[AllZWay]

I don't think many would agree with that assessment.

They all are essentially the same thing. All take a manufacturers product and modify it for the manufacturer with whom they were hired by.

Saleen and Roush are manufacturers according to the USDOT.

But neither build a Ford Mustang... they build upon a Ford Mustang.

SLP didn't make Camaro SS....they took a Z28 and made it an SS.

[GlennCMC70]

Saleen builds things like the S7, not the Mustang. they modify a Mustang. SLP is no different w/ regards to Roush and Saleen. plus, nothing SLP makes for the Camaro as far a body components are illegal for CMC. the hood and spoiler are legal.

and Team Hiline are a Ford and a 3rd gen - i think.

[mitchntx]

I guess I don't read where this says that the TX Fox cars are the only ones terribly disadvantaged.





contrary to what some of us might believe, the AI/CMC world does not necessarily revolve around Texas.



All referencing a litiny of posts about parity, both here and on CMC forums.

[mitchntx]

Don't take the points too seriously in a few regions - they aren't accurate at all. CMC-SE hasn't been updated in some time, nor has CMC-MidWest. I only did 2 races @ Iowa - King and Denton did considerably more throughout the season ( there are others, too ).



It's the data that is available.





However, top points in each region should not be the sole means of identifying a potential disparity between chassis, as you don't know what other cars race in each region, prep level, driver experience, etc.



I'm glad you posted that Adam.

Nor should the number of cars, prep level, driver experience, etc. be used as the sole means in identifying a potential disparity. That's too subjective of a call.

But using the points race will clearly show if GM truly dominates or a driver dominates.

[michaelmosty]

The manufacturers points race is a joke. It takes nothing into consideration regarding platform participation.

It's crazy to look back at the previous years when Ford "dominated" the manufacturers points.
2004 - Ford completely dominated the year....oh year, GM didn't have a single participant that year.
2005 - Wow, Ford won the manufacturers championship again. Out of 15 points collecting individuals only 4 were GM. It's rediculous to argue how much Ford dominated in the past when they had almost 4 times the cars.
2006 - same thing, way more Ford drivers than GM.
The same goes for this years Nationals. Ford had 10 out of the 17 entered cars so it is only logical that they did better than GM. Ohh, nevermind. :roll:

The manufacturers points needs to change formats to account for the % of cars entered for each class.

[mitchntx]

The manufacturers points race is a joke. It takes nothing into consideration regarding platform participation.

It's crazy to look back at the previous years when Ford "dominated" the manufacturers points.
2004 - Ford completely dominated the year....oh year, GM didn't have a single participant that year.
2005 - Wow, Ford won the manufacturers championship again. Out of 15 points collecting individuals only 4 were GM. It's rediculous to argue how much Ford dominated in the past when they had almost 4 times the cars.
2006 - same thing, way more Ford drivers than GM.
The same goes for this years Nationals. Ford had 10 out of the 17 entered cars so it is only logical that they did better than GM. Ohh, nevermind. :roll:

The manufacturers points needs to change formats to account for the % of cars entered for each class.

While I will agree with you on this, I ignored Manufacturer's points.

I went to each region and looked at the top points garnishing drivers from each region and tried to find out which platform they used. I didn't use the manufacturer's points based upon the reasons you stated.

In driver points, it's overwhelmingly biased towards Ford. Again, it's the data that's available. Al, how about an update, please!!! I would really like to know.

Even if there was only 1 GM in the grouping, based upon the endless posts I've been reading about dominance of the platform, lack of parity and level playing field and driver be damned, it stands to reason that the GM platform in each region should have the points lead, given a close to equal number of races run in both camps.

Hence the quote from Todd about the world doesn't revolve around Texas and my point about it's either Texas GM is head shoulders above the nation or the nation is head shoulders above Texas Ford.

Now, having said that ... I'm done.

This is doing nothing but causing a deeper rift between we racers. It shouldn't be like this, but it has definitely gotten that way. This is just an extension of what happened earlier in the year. I had hoped we had grown a bit and gotten past it. Apparently not.

I'm not pointing fingers because I got caught up in it too. I attempted to learn something about the Ford camp in order to make sound decisions for myself. But got caught up in the emotional roller coaster this has become.

At this point, I don't care what happens with the rules. Whatever is done, someone is gonna be pissed. And that just really sucks.

[jeffburch]

Rift?
Hmm, I'm clueless to this.
Seems like an open, honest and informative debate to me.


jb

[GlennCMC70]

i've always been able to disagree w/ others opinions w/out getting upset because they didnt believe in the cause i was fighting for. i really hoped better for this group. i really hope that the typed word hasnt lead people to think i think less of them that i have shown to thier face.
i feel that is not the case due to the "warm" reception i got at the new Ford road racing forum.
cant we all just get along?

[Rob Liebbe]

at the new Ford road racing forum

Did I miss a new Ford Road Racing forum? Is there a link or sumnthin'?

[AllZWay]

Rift?
Hmm, I'm clueless to this.
Seems like an open, honest and informative debate to me.


jb

Just debate for me too. Like I have said before... I think it is natural to want help with your own platform of choice.

[GlennCMC70]

at the new Ford road racing forum

Did I miss a new Ford Road Racing forum? Is there a link or sumnthin'?

its by invite only. you should be more friendly w/ your Ford bed fellows.

i drive a Ford everday, and i was kicked out. best of luck to you.

[Al Fernandez]

Damn, I even own a Mustang and I didnt get invited. I feel out of the loop...about 30 miles out of the loop really.

[David Love AI27]

Damn, I even own a Mustang and I didnt get invited. I feel out of the loop...about 30 miles out of the loop really.


LOL... only your "northside" neighbors will understand your 30 miles out statement....

[Alien]

i was raked over the coals over my air dam due to its appearance. the exact words were "it looks too AI'ish - take it off or get a DQ!".
That was the only reason they gave? How did it not conform to...

8.5.2. A front air dam may be used provided it meets the following requirements:
5. Air dams must fit securely to the body with minimum modifications to the original bumper cover.
6. Air dams must only extend downward from the original bumper cover, with no horizontal sections, and may not protrude beyond the overall outline of the body when viewed from above.

[AI#97]

The 2000 Cobra R wing is the only true "wing" that came from the factory on a Mustang, but that actual model is not permitted in CMC competition, so disallowing it makes sense.



Adam, if a racer had a 2000 GT running in CMC, would he not be able to use a stock ford part/wing on his car? It would be a factory appearance part installed on same model year car. Same goes for the NOSE. The things that make the 2000R exclusively restricted are the motor and IRS...? Atleast that's the way I read the WIDE OPEN statement excluding cobra 2000R's.... :?:

Either way you look at it though the 2000R wing is purely FOR appearance as i read it only generates 55 lbs of downforce at 100 mph....but the NOSE part is interesting??? :wink:

[Adam Ginsberg]

Adam, if a racer had a 2000 GT running in CMC, would he not be able to use a stock ford part/wing on his car? It would be a factory appearance part installed on same model year car. Same goes for the NOSE. The things that make the 2000R exclusively restricted are the motor and IRS...? Atleast that's the way I read the WIDE OPEN statement excluding cobra 2000R's.... :?:

Ford has several items with part numbers that aren't permitted in CMC competition.....like, the 351W in the 1995 Cobra R. That isn't the point.

IMO, the wings that have been permitted so far, including the R wing, are really outside the original intent of CMC....stock appearing, but not to include "special models".

Stock spoilers and wings only - specifically for Ford, like those on the stock GT, stock regular Cobra ( 93 and 95+ ), etc, but no Cobra R wing. For the GM's, IROC, 1LE, stock 4th gen, etc.


Either way you look at it though the 2000R wing is purely FOR appearance as i read it only generates 55 lbs of downforce at 100 mph....but the NOSE part is interesting??? :wink:

The 2000 Cobra R front splitter is not permitted in CMC competition, as it contains a horizontal section, which is expressly forbidden in section 8.5.2, subsection 6.

Matt, you really should read the CMC rules one day.....

[GlennCMC70]

i was raked over the coals over my air dam due to its appearance. the exact words were "it looks too AI'ish - take it off or get a DQ!".
That was the only reason they gave? How did it not conform to...

8.5.2. A front air dam may be used provided it meets the following requirements:
5. Air dams must fit securely to the body with minimum modifications to the original bumper cover.
6. Air dams must only extend downward from the original bumper cover, with no horizontal sections, and may not protrude beyond the overall outline of the body when viewed from above.

yes, that is the only reason. i was even flogged more so because i was a director and how dare i do such a thing.
before you build one, you may wanna wait for the 2008 rules. i was told that section was getting special attention this "rules re-write season".

[Al Fernandez]

Take it easy...Glenn might have gotten flak for it at the time, but he didnt in fact get DQd now did he?

[GlennCMC70]

Take it easy...Glenn might have gotten flak for it at the time, but he didnt in fact get DQd now did he?

your right. my bad. Thanks to Al and Todd, i did not get DQ'ed.