PDA

View Full Version : CMC-2 brake update



Al Fernandez
03-10-2007, 02:21 PM
On the CMC site are a couple of posts regarding big news for CMC-2 drivers: allowing much bigger rotors and (more importantly) 4 piston calipers. Glenn here will answer all your questions! haha

Seriously, I think that is a great step forward for those cars to help reduce the cost of keeping a car on the track. Yes, it can be a big cost up front, but its an investment that, given the right choices, will pay off dividends in reduced repair cost, time, and lost track time.

Adam Ginsberg
03-12-2007, 05:07 PM
Frankly, you guys are heading down a very dangerous path. CMC is looking more and more like A-Sedan with each one of these rule changes...especially when there is a stock alternative available. You are totally outside of the original "spirit and intent" of CMC....stock based racing.

The alarm going off in my head keep saying the same thing as last year...."Welcome to A-$edan....welcome to A-$edan....."

BSharp
03-12-2007, 07:46 PM
Out of curiosty, how many CMC drivers (Ford and GM) have missed track time due to caliper problems? I personally have been open tracking the same PBR calipers for the last 10 years with only one rebuild (it was not because of a failure). I have spares but if I had to I could get another one at the parts store.

mitchntx
03-12-2007, 09:41 PM
Out of curiosty, how many CMC drivers (Ford and GM) have missed track time due to caliper problems? I personally have been open tracking the same PBR calipers for the last 10 years with only one rebuild (it was not because of a failure). I have spares but if I had to I could get another one at the parts store.

I have ... The caliper appeared to be fine, but the pad was in the metal at the top and had 1/2 a pad at the base.

Installed 2 reman calipers ($35 ea) I got from Oreilly's in March 2006 and they tapered a $250 set of Carbotech pads at Hallett.

I was having all kinds of issues with pad knock back, making me pump the pedal on the straights to make sure I had brakes to use.

I was going through pads faster than tires.

The stock, 98+ caliper is grossly weak across the backbone of caliper.

Patterson was changing calipers after each race in his T2 car.

Congrats on having a base which you can rely on. It must give you a lot of peace of mind.

jeffburch
03-12-2007, 09:44 PM
None here.
Baer kit.
jb

Adam Ginsberg
03-12-2007, 10:21 PM
I have ... The caliper appeared to be fine, but the pad was in the metal at the top and had 1/2 a pad at the base.

Installed 2 reman calipers ($35 ea) I got from Oreilly's in March 2006 and they tapered a $250 set of Carbotech pads at Hallett.

I was having all kinds of issues with pad knock back, making me pump the pedal on the straights to make sure I had brakes to use.

I was going through pads faster than tires.

The stock, 98+ caliper is grossly weak across the backbone of caliper.

You appear to be about the only one in TX having an issue. Glenn has been very clear that he's never had a problem with his calipers.


Patterson was changing calipers after each race in his T2 car.

That information isn't CMC relevant - a T2 car runs more HP/TQ, is significantly heavier and they aren't allowed to run any brake cooling ducts.


Congrats on having a base which you can rely on. It must give you a lot of peace of mind.

Let's not start down that road again - each chassis has it's benefits/achilles heel.

BSharp
03-12-2007, 10:32 PM
Congrats on having a base which you can rely on. It must give you a lot of peace of mind.

Thanks, I sleep quite well at night.

mitchntx
03-13-2007, 05:52 AM
I have ... The caliper appeared to be fine, but the pad was in the metal at the top and had 1/2 a pad at the base.

Installed 2 reman calipers ($35 ea) I got from Oreilly's in March 2006 and they tapered a $250 set of Carbotech pads at Hallett.

I was having all kinds of issues with pad knock back, making me pump the pedal on the straights to make sure I had brakes to use.

I was going through pads faster than tires.

The stock, 98+ caliper is grossly weak across the backbone of caliper.

You appear to be about the only one in TX having an issue. Glenn has been very clear that he's never had a problem with his calipers.


Patterson was changing calipers after each race in his T2 car.

That information isn't CMC relevant - a T2 car runs more HP/TQ, is significantly heavier and they aren't allowed to run any brake cooling ducts.


Congrats on having a base which you can rely on. It must give you a lot of peace of mind.

Let's not start down that road again - each chassis has it's benefits/achilles heel.

Glenn never uses the brakes. See mylaps.com for validation of that fact.

The benefit/achilles heel fact seems to get lost on occasion, like when discussing wheels.

And the brake rule Al referenced was for CMC-2, not CMC. If you read the rules. CMC-2 has increased power and weight levels, very similar to T2.

BSharp
03-13-2007, 09:45 AM
Seems to me the cost effective way to fix it would be to allow modifications to allow the fitment of 2 pistons PBR or C5 calipers for the Gen IV cars. There are some very fast AI cars still using the PBR calipers.

And what about wheels? There are few 17 inch wheels and even fewer 16 inch wheels that will clear 4 piston calipers.

y5e06
03-13-2007, 11:03 AM
Seems to me the cost effective way to fix it would be to allow modifications to allow the fitment of 2 pistons PBR or C5 calipers for the Gen IV cars....

The C5 calipers are allowed in CMC and CMC-2.

8.35.9
4
a. All GM vehicles may use stock 98+ Camaro/Firebird 44mm dual piston calipers or C5 43mm dual piston calipers

but I'll also add I've never had noticable knock back, pad taper, etc and I've been using the same pair of used (junk yard sourced) LS1 f-body calipers on my car since early '05. until I need new calipers I do not plan on upgrading to the C5 units.

mitchntx
03-13-2007, 06:03 PM
Congrats on having a base which you can rely on. It must give you a lot of peace of mind.

Thanks, I sleep quite well at night.

Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. It must be a great feeling to know your brake pedal will be there.

michaelmosty
03-14-2007, 10:21 AM
Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. It must be a great feeling to know your brake pedal will be there.

Unless you have brake lines from discbrakesrus.com!! :evil:

Al Fernandez
03-15-2007, 09:08 PM
The intent is not to keep every single component stock, otherwise we would not allow aftermarket radiators, coolers, alternate water/oil/power steering pumps, etc. etc. The intent is to provide a safe, competitive environment while minimizing cost. We're focusing on lifetime cost, not first cost.

The parts we allowed will last dramatically longer than stock ones on these CMC-2 cars and will pay off the investment over time. They will not stop a car faster though, so if you dont want to spend the money...great! The whole idea was to give drivers the option, instead of just saying "learn to not use your brakes" :D

BSharp
03-16-2007, 09:19 AM
I will rephrase my question. How many people, AI or CMC, GM or Ford, has ever had a PBR caliper failure? Just wondering.

donovan
03-16-2007, 09:53 AM
I have two bent calipers. Front PBR's. I have photos somewhere.

mitchntx
03-16-2007, 10:00 AM
I will rephrase my question. How many people, AI or CMC, GM or Ford, has ever had a PBR caliper failure? Just wondering.

<raises hand>

Rob Liebbe
03-16-2007, 10:15 AM
I have ... The caliper appeared to be fine, but the pad was in the metal at the top and had 1/2 a pad at the base.

Installed 2 reman calipers ($35 ea) I got from Oreilly's in March 2006 and they tapered a $250 set of Carbotech pads at Hallett.

I was having all kinds of issues with pad knock back, making me pump the pedal on the straights to make sure I had brakes to use.

I was going through pads faster than tires.

The stock, 98+ caliper is grossly weak across the backbone of caliper.

Patterson was changing calipers after each race in his T2 car.

Congrats on having a base which you can rely on. It must give you a lot of peace of mind.


Mitch,

Not to question a person who holds nuclear power in the palm of his hands, but.....

I use the same GM PBR front calipers as pretty much everybody else on my Mustang without any significant taper wear problems. So that made me wonder what is different between my setup and yours that might account for tapered wear and came up with the fact that other components may be "flexing" such as spindle, hub, rotor, etc. Not that Mustang components are superior, but they are different. The caliper itself may not be the only culprit.

I also have had some history with the PBR rear calipers from the Camaros and Corvettes. I have known a few folks to have pad knock-back problems when those were the "upgrade" rear disc setup for Mustang from places like Baer. The rear axles would flex under cornering and push the pads back into the caliper. The next turn, you would have pump the pedal as you describe. These cars changed to the Ford/Varga (AKA stock 94 and up Mustang) rear caliper and the problem was eliminated. This problem can easily be causing some confusion especially when mixed with the front taper wear issue.

This makes me wonder if the othe Cambirds are having the same problem and/or what they may be doing differently.

I hope this helps or at least gives some food for thought.

Mmmmmm...food. Is it lunchtime yet?

mitchntx
03-16-2007, 12:31 PM
It just occurred to me what the deal is here ... we're not comparing apples to apples ...

The 2 piston PBR caliper, like I've seen the BAER calipers, Cobra calipers and C4 calipers are not the same PBR calipers that came on a 98+ Cambird.

Totally different animal.

Maybe I have oranges ... ;)

Finally, my car is at least 100lbs heavier (me) than the other guys ...

Rob Liebbe
03-16-2007, 02:57 PM
There you go. I run the C4 calipers.

Chevy bakes + my Ford engine = slow in, slow out

Nick
03-18-2007, 09:14 AM
Nice to see this was up for comment before becoming set in stone...
I agree with Adam.. A Sedan here we come.

How will this affect future integration of CMC and CMC2? Combining the two classes is still an eventual goal, right?

Which eligible vehicle comes stock with 4 piston calipers that the other makes need to upgrade to be equal?

Since we may not get a chance, I'll go on record now to say that CMC does not need 4 piston calipers.

GlennCMC70
03-18-2007, 10:53 AM
Mitchs caliper spread was verified w/ a veneer caliper. the open side was wider than a new unused GM set and the open side closest to the center of the rotor was wider than the part nearest the bridge of the caliper.

now, i've run the very same caliper since i started. havent even done a rebuild on them. i also dont run cooling ducts. Mitch and myself run the same pads, so we are at a loss as to why my live and he has spread one set on his CMC car. cooling ducts would almost surely cure this issue. that and the use of C5 calipers will help.

as far as 4 piston calipers being legal for CMC-2, i dont like it. 13" 2 piston brakes are plenty for a CMC-2 car. in fact, i predict that the stock mustang brakes for CMC-2 will be the most common set-up for the ford guys.

GlennCMC70
03-18-2007, 10:57 AM
Nice to see this was up for comment before becoming set in stone...
I agree with Adam.. A Sedan here we come.

How will this affect future integration of CMC and CMC2? Combining the two classes is still an eventual goal, right?

Which eligible vehicle comes stock with 4 piston calipers that the other makes need to upgrade to be equal?

Since we may not get a chance, I'll go on record now to say that CMC does not need 4 piston calipers.

please post your feelings on this on the national CMC forum. its not to late to have this changed.

AllZWay
03-18-2007, 01:16 PM
Not that it really matters... But I don't like this change either. I think the C5 upgrade should be enough.

mitchntx
03-18-2007, 03:22 PM
There has to be a hidden agenda for this drastic of a rules change to take place. Someone, somewhere is getting a free set of brakes form a vendor for getting this thing fast-tracked through.

But, I really don't think it necessary to do based upon experience with a 2 piston C5 caliper/rotor combo on a 3700lb car.

It smells very much like MSR-H's attitude ... you'll race with our rules or find somewhere else to do it.

donovan
03-18-2007, 03:25 PM
This is how I see it.

I was with CMC power, well a little more than CMC power in 2004. It was 260HP/300TQ... wait a minute, that is CMC-2 power.

I went thru two sets of calipers $600, two sets of rotors $400 and four sets of pads $550.

I switched to a set of used $600 Brembo 4 piston calipers, and a $280 set of slotted Brembo rotors... that was early 2005.

I was able to use the same rotors for two full seasons, and I still have the second set of pads on the car...

I'm saving money with this setup...

Do you get it yet?

DD

mitchntx
03-18-2007, 04:01 PM
I get it DD ... but if you read elsewhere, it was assumed the issue was me, not the brakes when I had a similar brake issue.

Just like using Castrol SRF brake fluid, it costs more initially, but you rarely have to deal with it again.

I'm not against the 4 piston brake package. I take issue with how it's being handled.

donovan
03-18-2007, 04:08 PM
Fair enough... and now I get it...

Oh, and my post was in general, not toward you or anyone in particular.
:oops:

AllZWay
03-18-2007, 04:58 PM
I have ran the C5 setup on my 3700lb street car with roughly 350hp and ran several events.... I think 4 or 5....... on $15 a piece Napa rotors and one set of track pads to 1/2 life and never a single problem.

Al Fernandez
03-21-2007, 09:51 AM
I am shocked there is no cat picture yet to capture your feelings Mitch. :wink:

This is not about escalating speed/cost. The goal is not to make the cars faster and therefore more expensive, rather more dependable and potentially safer. The cost to field a competitive CMC-2 car is not increased by this at all. There is no hidden agenda, no free calipers, nothing other than a desire to give drivers the choice to invest money up front to reduce future maintenance and reduce the potential for lost track time.

The general feeling at the top has always been that CMC brakes are capable but marginal from a reliability/longevity standpoint. While there are some guys that manage to go ridiculous amount of track time on their gear, there are guys that are consistently having to spend substantial money and time on their brakes. This will only get workse as hp and weight increases in CMC-2.

Given that right now there are no CMC-2 cars, this made it the ideal time. Thats the reason for the timing: car count. Right now anyone contemplating building a CMC-2 car pick the package that makes the most sense for them right off the bat. It doesnt result in 100+ current owners around the country to suddenly have to contemplate their setup.

When building a new car, the incremental cost will be very small. The recurring maintenance cost will be noticeable, but it might be too infrequent to pay off. That depends on how hard you are on equipment and your tolerance for 10yr old remans Vs new (go search on frrax.com and see how many f-body guys trust reman calipers, its not a no brainer). The beauty of this is that the drivers that dont think they need to spend the extra money to get X setup wont have to because on track it wont matter.

GlennCMC70
03-21-2007, 11:15 AM
Al, i really think you are missing the big issue here. when myself and Mitch proposed back in '05 about legalizing the C5 caliper (same caliper, stronger casting, smaller pistons, accepts F-body pads) we were shot down in spectaculare fashon in a public flogging. one resonce we got was "how do we explain the word CORVETTE on it to the Ford guys?" and the other was "learn to brake if your hurting equipment."
there was no increase in cost by switching to the C5 caliper.
now you guys are using the same arguments we used and we are just expected to moo and move along. :roll:
eventually the C5 stuff was allowed ('07) and thats great.
i think the step from CMC and CMC-2 is too big w/ regards to brakes. if CMC is limited in braking by tire size, well so is CMC-2. the tires are the same size contact patch wise.
its good we are testing this brake thing in a small new class and not doing it in CMC, but i think its too much too soon.
and all this from a guy who has a CMC-2 legal Brembo set-up ready for his future CMC-2 car (2008?).

mitchntx
03-21-2007, 12:17 PM
edited ...

jeffburch
03-21-2007, 01:10 PM
I would like to see a discussion on the nat'l site about the future of ALL of CMC.
What lies ahead for my 3rd Gen Camaro?
17" wheels?
13" brakes?
L98?

jb

mitchntx
03-21-2007, 01:47 PM
For you Jeff ... dubs, drums and I6 ...

I see this evolution as the same thing that had to happen when the 4th gen and SN95 platforms became a viable entity in CMC.

It's a natural progression.

My thoughts are that CMC-2 will be saddled with weight to offset the added HP in order to level the playing field.

By doing a CMC-2 series, it gives an opportunity to work the rules to get the times equal to current CMC times without skewing current CMC racing.

Al Fernandez
03-21-2007, 03:35 PM
Glenn, I'm not trying to sound argumentative, but you did not get a public flogging because of that, rather because of trying to say that just because mustangs can run C4 calipers (38mm PBRs by any other name) then 4th gens should be allowed to run C5 calipers. Besides, the flogging came from other racers, not other directors... :D

What has become of Lewis anyway??

Jeff, there was a thread about that, though maybe not with enough detail? I think long term we'd prefer to have one CMC class. However, we also wanted a sandbox for the newer cars to play in now, and just dont have the resources to experiment until an S197 or an LS1 car is not a CMC class killer. Thats why CMC-2 was born. Mitch, as usual, is probably the smartest guy in the thread. 8)


[/i]

jeffburch
03-21-2007, 04:37 PM
I understand fully why -2 is here, because of the new cars.
My point is this, how does the old shit fit in to THE FUTURE?
Is Foxes and 3rd gens gonna get stuff when it goes to a single class.

jb

mitchntx
03-21-2007, 04:52 PM
You already own the country and you want more?

If I was a 3rd gen owner, I'd be looking at some sabotage for ole #3

mitchntx
03-21-2007, 04:57 PM
edit: kinder ... gentler ...

jeffburch
03-21-2007, 05:02 PM
Well, that answers the "is it the car or the driver/car chief" question.
NOT!

jb

Al Fernandez
03-22-2007, 09:21 AM
Above all, we try really hard to ensure there is balance across the packages and that no one is made "uncompetitive" by anything new. Thats been true in CMC now since I started. A competitive car parked in 2003 and campaigned this year would still be competitive.

So Jeff, no, the older stuff wont get stuffed. As long as there are foxes and 3rd gens in the clan we'll continue to ensure they are just as competitive on the track as any other platform (to the best of our ability). Right now I think the choice of car has nothing to do with lap time potential rather with personal preference. Some are easier to maintain, some are cheaper to build, bla bla bla, but talent notwithstanding, they can all swing the same lap times. That's the way it'll stay.

Mike Bell
03-22-2007, 09:35 AM
Right now I think the choice of car has nothing to do with lap time potential rather with personal preference. Some are easier to maintain, some are cheaper to build, bla bla bla, but talent notwithstanding, they can all swing the same lap times. That's the way it'll stay.

Fantasy island has to be getting old Al, come back to the USA when you get a chance. :wink:

MSRC last month, you weren't there, 3 GM's in mid 1:24's in Sunday Qual and the closest Mustang??? 8/10ths to over a second slower.

Talent notwithstanding of course.

CMC17
03-22-2007, 09:41 AM
Yeah!

SLA?
Torque arm?
350ci.?
Aero package other than a brick?

Let us Fairmont drivers have the above too so we can play and set lap records - let alone win a race.

zzzaaaa plaaane boss..zzzaaaaaa plane

Life is good on GM island.

mitchntx
03-22-2007, 12:05 PM
Yeah!

SLA?
Torque arm?
350ci.?
Aero package other than a brick?

Let us Fairmont drivers have the above too so we can play and set lap records - let alone win a race.

zzzaaaa plaaane boss..zzzaaaaaa plane

Life is good on GM island.

And spark plugs ... don't forget spark plugs.
You guys also need spark plugs that actually fire in order to be fast.

CMC17
03-22-2007, 12:13 PM
Yeah!

SLA?
Torque arm?
350ci.?
Aero package other than a brick?

Let us Fairmont drivers have the above too so we can play and set lap records - let alone win a race.

zzzaaaa plaaane boss..zzzaaaaaa plane

Life is good on GM island.

And spark plugs ... don't forget spark plugs.
You guys also need spark plugs that actually fire in order to be fast.

Yep, lesson learned there - DON'T DROP ONE! lol

From 164hp to 219hp - I'm still shy by a lot to compete in CMC not CMC-2!!! ;)

GlennCMC70
03-22-2007, 12:22 PM
Right now I think the choice of car has nothing to do with lap time potential rather with personal preference. Some are easier to maintain, some are cheaper to build, bla bla bla, but talent notwithstanding, they can all swing the same lap times. That's the way it'll stay.

Fantasy island has to be getting old Al, come back to the USA when you get a chance. :wink:

MSRC last month, you weren't there, 3 GM's in mid 1:24's in Sunday Qual and the closest Mustang??? 8/10ths to over a second slower.

Talent notwithstanding of course.

back in '05 i was getting my ass handed to me regularly. spent alot of time working on the set-up. i've changed nothing but rear springs and front shocks. i havent pulled anyone down the straights, so drop the 350ci excuse. some of you guys would be really fast if your set-up was better. James has the same back ground i have w/ the added dirt track stuff. he also has a set-up i pointed him to. once he gets a nice shock, he will be deadly fast.
wasnt it all ford 1/2/3 for '05? a GM 1/2/3 in '06 is the end of the world? '05 was a fox, '06 was a 3rd gen GM, hope this year is a 4th gen GM on top. thats 3 of the 4 allowed platforms in 3 years. looks like its pretty even to me. but hey wanna let me drop the extra 50lbs i carry over everone else?

jeffburch
03-22-2007, 12:32 PM
This point is always misunderstood by guys with 350's when coming from a guy with a 5L.
Until you are in the position of being short of the number, you aren't seeing it.
Throwing numbers out the window is a lot easier than building within the confines of the rule set to get TO that number.

jb

Mike Bell
03-22-2007, 12:36 PM
I was talking to "Fantasy Al" who thinks it's all platform even steven, Glenn, but since you've taken up the cause I'll give you my $.02 worth on your response.

I give you and JB and even JP your due, the hard work and great setups have paid off handsomely. But taking a new driver to the front with a new car in a borrowed setup is hardly evidence of "even platforms" which is what Mr. Fernandez is saying we have. In fact, I think it proves the inherent advantages of the GM's out of the gate. Tell me who was even close last event in a Ford?? Varner was .8 slower than the top 3 GM's best with his best. Pretty far out of reach from EVEN STEVEN, but Al thinks we have parity.

From where I sit, the GM guys finally learned to take advantage of the platform they already had back in 05. You should not be penalized for it, but for me to sit on my hands while Mr. Fernandez comes in with the west coast strut and spews the "all's fair from up here" viewpoint is a bit of sugar coating IMHO.

CMC17
03-22-2007, 12:44 PM
I too was addressing the issues with the gen IV cars. It's an EZ-mode ride with the table top torque curve compared to a 5.0L.

To each his own, but to say things are on a level playing field is down right silllllly.

mitchntx
03-22-2007, 01:10 PM
Damn ... finally some real drama! WooHoo! Been way too quiet around here. Glad you guys finally decided to show back up.



But taking a new driver to the front with a new car in a borrowed setup is hardly evidence of "even platforms" which is what Mr. Fernandez is saying we have.


James is ANYTHING but new. Mike, you are one of the ones who, I think, don't put much stock into HPDE. Trust me, it helps take a LOT of tools needed to go W2W out of the equation. And then add in a couple years of WEEKLY W2W racing on dirt tracks sorta handles the other side of the equation.

The boy is a seasoned vet with more laps logged W2W than most any of us, I dare say.



In fact, I think it proves the inherent advantages of the GM's out of the gate. Tell me who was even close last event in a Ford?? Varner was .8 slower than the top 3 GM's best with his best. Pretty far out of reach from EVEN STEVEN, but Al thinks we have parity.


When cars equal out, the "driver's" rise to the top.

Mike, you car looked like it was on ice, from the control tower and from in-car video. No one out there is having to pitch the car like you are to get it to rotate. It surprises me you finish as high as you do.

Glenn and I spent a crap load of time, tires, brakes and entry fees to DEs tuning. We changed things from end of my car to the other trying to find the sweet spot. It was no "out of the gate" or "arrive and drive" as you suggest. We got Darron to take 2 different set ups out last year and he gave us great feedback. It was a tremendous help to get a fresh set of butt cheeks perspective.

Maybe you need to do the same thing with your stable.

That's not a slam, rather the GM camp was EXACTLY where you are today, 2 years ago. If you go back and look, we whined and cried about restrictor plates and weight disadvantages. We learned that to get to the front, figger out what's wrong instead of asking for relief.

For laughs, I suggest you guys throw in a stock Windosr and then choke it down so that it gets 50% of it's normal air and then live life with extra cubes.



while Mr. Fernandez comes in with the west coast strut and spews the "all's fair from up here" viewpoint is a bit of sugar coating IMHO.

Now that's funny, right there ... I don't care who ya are ...

GlennCMC70
03-22-2007, 01:34 PM
so my sucess is not due to a good qual spot? something Eric was not able to do because of motor issues - dare i say - that were self inflicted? (for the past 2 events!)
so because i did not have to fight the "pack" in R1 and R3 @ MSR-C, and i checked out (on my home track) much like Eric has himself in the past (at his home track) when he secured a good qual spot, i have an unfair advantage w/ the platform i choose to race?
i really get it now.
Eric does well cause he's a great driver.
Glenn does well cause his car has an advantage over the field.
so i still suck, but my car is dialed in.
do i have all this right?
guess thats better than "i still suck, but so does my set-up."
so what the deal w/ Jeff holding the track record? he's .2 faster than me. i guess i suck about 2 tenths more than Jeff. why all the 4th gen crap and not the 3rd gen crap?

GlennCMC70
03-22-2007, 01:40 PM
there is always a reason why one's own performance is subpar. in this case its due to the #70 being a 4th gen w/ a 350. :roll:

Mike Bell
03-22-2007, 01:44 PM
ROFLMAO, see how they shine. Glenn, that's why I used Sunday's laptimes and not Saturday's since Varner can't seem to keep the spark plugs off the floor in his shop. Besides, I watched you flog him at MSRH which isn't really your home track now is it??

My post isn't about drivers, it's about platforms. JB figured out how to make his f-body fastest firstest, then Glenn got it. Etc Etc. All are great jobs and well deserved efforts. Even a great car sucks if improperly driven so there's no way I'm saying that the drivers aren't doing a hell of a job.

But, the cars are not equal platforms. They weren't back in 2005, the aren't in 2007. Al Fernandez saying it is so doesn't convince me. That's what I said in my first post, and why there were no other names in the first post except Mike Bell and Al Fernandez. Because I don't agree with Al's statement - the statement I highlighted.

GlennCMC70
03-22-2007, 02:30 PM
i woudnt say flog. he ran my ass down 2 times and in a car that was not his.
on the MSR-C sunday he was caught in traffic due to a bad qual cause a rocker came off. and he still caught me.

its all good.

mitchntx
03-22-2007, 02:59 PM
Even a great car sucks if improperly driven so there's no way I'm saying that the drivers aren't doing a hell of a job.


"You chose the platform with which to compete."

Adam Ginnsberg - series director circa 2005

Solution?
http://www.aicmctexas.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4&highlight=




But, the cars are not equal platforms. They weren't back in 2005, the aren't in 2007.

So let me fully understand ... a driver of a 4th gen that finishes behind a Mustang sucks?

jeffburch
03-22-2007, 03:03 PM
Good golly, I may attend more home events if this is what I left.
Mitch, you got a mouse in your pocket?? ("We" this/that).
Sorry, only kidding. :arrow: :lol:

jb

oh and ps
Chevy rocks!

mitchntx
03-22-2007, 03:05 PM
Good golly, I may attend more home events if this is what I left.
Mitch, you got a mouse in your pocket?? ("We" this/that).
Sorry, only kidding. :arrow: :lol:

jb

Glenn sometimes forgets he's not alone.

Mike Bell
03-22-2007, 03:11 PM
[quote=Mike Bell]
But, the cars are not equal platforms. They weren't back in 2005, the aren't in 2007.

So let me fully understand ... a driver of a 4th gen that finishes behind a Mustang sucks?

Keep trying to make it about the drivers huh???

That would be nice if it were only about the drivers, but that would require parity in the platforms. I'm saying that big Al's pie in the sky assessment is too rosey for me to swallow. I don't expect the GM guys to agree for cryin out loud!! :wink:

Shoe is on the other foot, time for the Blue Oval crowd to lobby. The way things move in CMC land, I expect an audience with the Pope sometime around 2010.

mitchntx
03-22-2007, 03:16 PM
You crack me up, Bell ...

Welcome home, brother.


http://www.redamma.com/links/kitty%20hug.jpg

Mike Bell
03-22-2007, 03:30 PM
Thanks Mitch, now come on out and race with us - soon.

FWIW, I think Proctor has done a HELLUVA job already, my ego tells me he MUST HAVE A TON OF EXPERIENCE AND BE THE SECOND COMING OF JEFFY GORDON. Glenn has done a great job too.

<phooey, pee-eeeewww, man that tastes bad!> Anyone got some mouthwash???

RichardP
03-22-2007, 03:46 PM
But, the cars are not equal platforms.


Here is a quote about Nationals from the CMC board a while back that I found pretty interesting:



The top ten finishers in the national say a lot about the parity in CMC. We had 5 Mustangs and 5 Camaros. There were 2 fox bodies, two 3rd gens, 3 SN95s and three 4th gens one of them running the 250HP higher weight option. Engines consisted of 3 LT1s, 2 TPIs, three 5.0 fuelies, a 4.6 and a 5.0 carb. About the only thing missing was a carb car from the general and a Pontiac.



No one is ever going to fully agree about parity in any series where there are multiple platforms but I have been pretty impressed with the balance in CMC over the years.


Richard P.

Rob Liebbe
03-22-2007, 03:48 PM
You will NOT drag me down to Chevy level.

mitchntx
03-22-2007, 04:00 PM
Thanks Mitch, now come on out and race with us - soon.


The outage schedule has been moved up 5 days ... hmmm
was scheduled to end on May 4th ...
The last 2 weeks of testing is the toughest ....

Could a TWS the end of April be a possibility? I guess I need to come out and run mid-pack so that the statistics can be skewed back into the 4th gen's court.

But the bigger question remains ... why are you so intrigued by Al's "west coast strut"?

donovan
03-22-2007, 04:16 PM
Yeah!

SLA?
Torque arm?
350ci.?
Aero package other than a brick?

Let us Fairmont drivers have the above too so we can play and set lap records - let alone win a race.

zzzaaaa plaaane boss..zzzaaaaaa plane

Life is good on GM island.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Chevrolet-Camaro-Z28-Z28-Camaro-LT1-LOW-LOW-RESERVE-must-sell_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ6161QQitemZ2200932 85722QQrdZ1

8)

GlennCMC70
03-22-2007, 04:20 PM
But, the cars are not equal platforms.


Here is a quote about Nationals from the CMC board a while back that I found pretty interesting:



The top ten finishers in the national say a lot about the parity in CMC. We had 5 Mustangs and 5 Camaros. There were 2 fox bodies, two 3rd gens, 3 SN95s and three 4th gens one of them running the 250HP higher weight option. Engines consisted of 3 LT1s, 2 TPIs, three 5.0 fuelies, a 4.6 and a 5.0 carb. About the only thing missing was a carb car from the general and a Pontiac.



No one is ever going to fully agree about parity in any series where there are multiple platforms but I have been pretty impressed with the balance in CMC over the years.


Richard P.

thank you Richard!
that is what i was trying to say in the original post i made today. over the last 2 years we have seen Champions from Ford and GM - 3rd gen. this year looks like a GM 4th gen year (so far). thats an even spread.
honestly, w/ Jeff out chasing bigger tracks and Eric having issues for 2 weekends in a row, its allowed me to score some really good finishes. will the trend continue? who knows, but if it does, it just adds to the fact that any platform can win. now once a particulare platform tops the points for multiple years, dont think a change is comming.

in '05 Varner had 11 wins. '06 Jeff had 10 wins. if i get 1 win @ TWS i'll have 5 @ the half way point in the '07 season. i'm on track w/ those numbers from years past.

mitchntx
03-22-2007, 04:24 PM
It irks me to no end the way you guys use logic, reason and facts. This was a perfectly good internet argument till "you people" showed up.

:roll:

GlennCMC70
03-22-2007, 04:26 PM
being a bunch of Ford guys, bringing the "tech" should be the norm.
sorry to bring the standards of internet "bench racing" up a knotch or two.

Boudy
03-22-2007, 04:47 PM
Hold on guys and just pause for a minute...

OK, I've refreshed my popcorn. Please continue!

Boudy

mitchntx
03-22-2007, 05:05 PM
Robert, pass the salt ... this thread might be salvageable ...

RichardP
03-22-2007, 05:41 PM
wasnt it all ford 1/2/3 for '05? a GM 1/2/3 in '06 is the end of the world?


Just to muddy up the argument with a few more facts...

Glenn in his GM was second in points in '05 before a problem on the dyno took that away.

In '06, Eric missed 6 races thus he counted a zero even after drops. If Eric in his Ford had gotten a fourth place in any one of those six races he missed, he would have jumped to second in the final standings.


Saying either year was dominant for one make isn't realistically indicative of the true story.


Richard P.

mitchntx
03-22-2007, 05:54 PM
Stop with the facts and cold hard reality already.

I had the 2 top dawgs about ready to buy LMS 4th gens and you have to go and point out that the sky really isn't falling.

Dammitt!

GlennCMC70
03-22-2007, 07:40 PM
Glenn in his GM was second in points in '05 before a problem on the dyno took that away.

yep, but 5 hp was enough to move me to 5th, not counting how much it helped in weekends before that. :roll: so lets not refer to it as a 2nd w/ bagage. it was a 5th damit! oh, and there was that rookie of the year thing too. :x

Mike Bell
03-22-2007, 08:38 PM
Yeah, let's muddy the waters on platform parity with that good old performance barometer: THE CMC POINTS SYSTEM. LOL.

Accurately determining the performance of one vehicle platform vs. another by using a yearly DRIVER points system based upon ATTENDANCE and weighted finishing positions is not going to tell you which (if any) platform performed better. Leaves out significant factors such as percentage of each make in the field (example: 30% GM vs 70% Ford in race), lap time differentials, etc. Instead we factor in that adventure in plot manipulation called "inverted starts" by using annual driver points.

I'm not convinced this is indicative of platform parity. YMMV.

AllZWay
03-22-2007, 08:44 PM
FWIW, I think Proctor has done a HELLUVA job already, my ego tells me he MUST HAVE A TON OF EXPERIENCE AND BE THE SECOND COMING OF JEFFY GORDON.

I have been out all day and missed all this....but all I can say is Thanks.... but seriously.... Glenn and Mitch do have a setup that works and that is the key to fast times in a 4th gen F-body. My times even suprised the hell out of me.

In my street car with 100 more HP, more tires and brakes....by best times were in the 1:26xxx range.

My first trips to MSR with the new car the best times were.... 1:27xxxx
After that test day I described how badly the car pushed wih the setup they guided me too...... but one small fix that they suggested and BAM...the car handled perfectly afterwards....well as good a an ill prepared CMC car can handle. ;)

BTW.... I have a TON of laps around MSRC over the last 6 years.

GlennCMC70
03-22-2007, 09:22 PM
Yeah, let's muddy the waters on platform parity with that good old performance barometer: THE CMC POINTS SYSTEM. LOL.

Accurately determining the performance of one vehicle platform vs. another by using a yearly DRIVER points system based upon ATTENDANCE and weighted finishing positions is not going to tell you which (if any) platform performed better. Leaves out significant factors such as percentage of each make in the field (example: 30% GM vs 70% Ford in race), lap time differentials, etc. Instead we factor in that adventure in plot manipulation called "inverted starts" by using annual driver points.

I'm not convinced this is indicative of platform parity. YMMV.

all of the yard sticks you don't want me to measure w/ are the very ones you are using to determine that my performance is better than those not in a 4th gen.
i work very hard to get clean qual laps. that gets me a good qual and start position. i run good lap times in a race w/ no "battles". Eric had battles, wore his tires out getting away from the pack. Jeff bests my lap time and yet mine and James' time are suspect due to the platform..... not making since man. Eric isn't going to set lap record by working thru the field from the rear.
inverted starts????? that just shows who the faster guys truly are. if half of the races (use '06 as an example) are inverts and i still manage 20 top 5's out of 26 races (Jeff had 21 the same year), 13 top 3's out of 26 races, well you tell me what that means......
to me it means i didn't spin, i didn't break, i didn't take un-needed risks that resulted in lost positions. i raced for the Championship each and every time i got on the track.

sorry if i seemed to get pissed w/ this topic. but i really hate people explaining way my results as something other than my hard work.
it started back in '05 w/the car and people thinking i wrote a check to LGM for it, and now w/ my doing well the first 2 events of the year. i really feel all platforms are equal, and have felt that way since late '05. once i realized my problem w/ Eric was w/ his talent and the lack of mine, and not cause everyone is cheating - that's why i cant win, i worked on myself and the car. did i do it alone, hell no. and some can verify this - i spend ALL my time away from work doing something that involves racing in CMC. i talk set-up w/ Mitch 3-4 times a week. how many of you look @ your car when not @ the track? how many do your own work? how many understand what changes to make to make a car handle differently.
am i the best driver? hell no. do i work harder than most, i think so.
ask yourself how bad you want it, and then look at yourself and see if your doing all you can to get it.
this is the end of my involvement w/this thread. it is WAY of topic, as much my fault as anyone's.

Al Fernandez
03-25-2007, 05:52 PM
Holy crap man...you guys are like Seinfeld...three pages about nothing! :lol:

You're entirely right Mike, Fords are piles. We've tried to figure out what rules to change to make them equal, but we cant find anyone that knows how to make them fast. All the fast guys drive GM cars :lol:

There will always be those that think their hardware is at a disadvantage and they'll lobby for improvements. This happens in all classes with multiple platforms, be it Nascar, Speed WC, Grand Am, you name it. Thats ok, thats the racer's job; to try to go faster. The results are clear though, look at race results, lap times, season championships, whatever. This is Camaro Mustang Challenge we're talking about, not Camaro Camaro and not Mustang Mustang.

mitchntx
03-25-2007, 09:15 PM
You're entirely right Mike, Fords are piles. We've tried to figure out what rules to change to make them equal, but we cant find anyone that knows how to make them fast. All the fast guys drive GM cars :lol:


http://www.russlichter.com/retardo%20kitty.jpg

CMC17
03-26-2007, 07:26 AM
You're entirely right Mike, Fords are piles. We've tried to figure out what rules to change to make them equal, but we cant find anyone that knows how to make them fast. All the fast guys drive GM cars :lol:




It's ok to look down upon the Ford drivers. We are used to it and soon it will be the Camaro Camaro challenge unless changes are made. I for one am >< that close to calling it done.

marshall_mosty
03-26-2007, 12:38 PM
...people thinking i wrote a check to LGM for it...

I think Glenn's be completely on his own this year. LG has been too busy with WC and Forza Motorsport to help Glenn out any.

I can't remember anytime this year that I heard Lou's helicopter coming to bring needed supplies to the GM camp... end of an era? maybe...

Glenn just "might" know how to drive.



:wink: 8) :D

CMC17
03-26-2007, 01:22 PM
Whatever is being smoke around these parts must be really good.

2007 races (not including the Utopian inverts)

GM - 3 wins
Ford - 1 wins

2006 - last 6 non-inverted races

GM - 5 wins
Ford - 1 win

Driving ability is probably close too or at parity......so, what's the answer?

Good luck to those that are left. <waves bye to CMC and hello to Time Trials>

mitchntx
03-26-2007, 02:09 PM
Whatever is being smoke around these parts must be really good.

2007 races (not including the Utopian inverts)

GM - 3 wins
Ford - 1 wins

2006 - last 6 non-inverted races

GM - 5 wins
Ford - 1 win

Driving ability is probably close too or at parity......so, what's the answer?

Good luck to those that are left. <waves bye to CMC and hello to Time Trials>

I love statistics ... you can make them quantify just about any conclusion one wishes to draw.

Slicing the pie a thicker ...

2006 GM vs Ford results:
GM had 19 podium finishes
Ford had 23


Being as this is a Ford vs GM thing ...

Manufacturer's Points for 2006
Ford - GM
163 - 152 - Cal
214 - 172 - Tex
154 - 25 - Ohio - Indiana
233 - 124 - East Coast
======
764 - 473

It looks like GM is the one needing the help.

If I recall correctly, Eric, you ran down Glenn in an unfamiliar Mustang. The infamous debris in T16 is all that kept you from winning that race.

And at Cresson, you were slicing through the pack pretty good till you spun at T6(?)

It appears that the only thing hurting Ford's finishes is the Ford drivers.

CMC17
03-26-2007, 02:15 PM
Grape cool-aid abundant where you're from?

Please read and fully understand the following:

2007 races (not including the Utopian inverts)

GM - 3 wins
Ford - 1 wins

2006 - last 6 non-inverted races

GM - 5 wins
Ford - 1 win

It's bold now and shouldn't be difficult to see. Stick to the facts. Slicing/catching have nothing to do with the above. Please, stay on the facts presented.

****BYE****

Mike Bell
03-26-2007, 02:22 PM
Forget it, Al responded.

No need to discuss further IMHO.

mitchntx
03-26-2007, 02:26 PM
It's bold now and shouldn't be difficult to see. Stick to the facts. Slicing/catching have nothing to do with the above. Please, stay on the facts presented above.

Nice ... I could stick to your rose colored view, but chose to view ALL the facts, not those selected for me ...

http://www.camaromustangchallenge.com/Points/Pointsb06.htm

Not saying yours are wrong, just not the whole picture.

CMC17
03-26-2007, 02:35 PM
Forget it, Al responded.

No need to discuss further IMHO.

I agree and no hope in his words.

Since it's one sided at the moment, there's no need to climb the hill when it's futile. Time to go elsewhere and have some fun for a change.

CMC17
03-26-2007, 02:36 PM
It's bold now and shouldn't be difficult to see. Stick to the facts. Slicing/catching have nothing to do with the above. Please, stay on the facts presented above.

Nice ... I could stick to your rose colored view, but chose to view ALL the facts, not those selected for me ...

http://www.camaromustangchallenge.com/Points/Pointsb06.htm

Not saying yours are wrong, just not the whole picture.

pssst... the top three in '06 are GM's. Thanks for backing my statement.

mitchntx
03-26-2007, 02:38 PM
It's bold now and shouldn't be difficult to see. Stick to the facts. Slicing/catching have nothing to do with the above. Please, stay on the facts presented above.

Nice ... I could stick to your rose colored view, but chose to view ALL the facts, not those selected for me ...

http://www.camaromustangchallenge.com/Points/Pointsb06.htm

Not saying yours are wrong, just not the whole picture.

pssst... the top three are GM's. Thanks for backing my statement.

pssst ... look at ALL the results. Ford had more podiums in 2006 ...
The only reason why you aren't in that top 3 is because of Hallett and blown motors.

Al Fernandez
03-26-2007, 02:46 PM
Mike, Eric... my sincerest apologies. Seriously, I was making a joke. Bad timing, bad delivery...I wasnt being serious. There are lots of very fast mustang guys in CMC. As a matter of fact, I'd say more than fast GM guys. Its not surprising, there are simply more Ford guys!

In any case, feel free to call me any time, my #s are in the rulebook if you want to get into details. We look very very carefully at platform parity all the time. One finish position in one region does not a valid statistic make. If you did that and looked at Ca you'd see:
SN95 wins: 15
4th gen wins: 7

The point is you have to be very careful when using statistics to validate a point.

As a matter of fact, a certain racer asked about a potential rules mod just this weekend, and when I told him to package it up and send to the directors I told him specifically to include consideration for what that would do to other cars. ie, if the result is only increased performance of 4th gens he was going to have a hard time selling it.

CMC17
03-26-2007, 02:56 PM
***Final Statement***

There comes a time when one realizes when the deck is stacked to one side or the other.

As long as the Mustang drivers know that they are bringing a knife to a gun fight and can accept the outcome, then more power to them. I cannot accept it and will not turn blue in the face waiting for support from the other Mustang drivers.

Go have fun and enjoy racing or driving alone on the track.

Al Fernandez
03-26-2007, 03:17 PM
Eric, sorry you feel that way, I really am. I dont know how to convince you, but for what its worth, we've had more discussions on this topic than I can remember. Call up Tony or Todd, they're both Mustang drivers and decision makers.

CMC17
03-26-2007, 03:22 PM
Eric, sorry you feel that way, I really am. I dont know how to convince you, but for what its worth, we've had more discussions on this topic than I can remember. Call up Tony or Todd, they're both Mustang drivers and decision makers.

I have a pool going to see who will "tank" one of the next races to let a Ford win.

<<<stay tuned>>>

RichardP
03-26-2007, 03:27 PM
I'm a bit confused since the numbers don't really seem to be backing up this huge disparity.


As has been stated before, Eric didn't fully compete last year. If we normalize his finishes and compare them against his GM competitors we might get a better picture.

For all the races last year where Eric took the green flag and saw the checker he had an average finish of 2.28.

The same number for last year's champion is 3.14.
Second place in the championship had an average finish of 4.04.


Richard P.

CMC17
03-26-2007, 03:34 PM
I'm a bit confused since the numbers don't really seem to be backing up this huge disparity.


As has been stated before, Eric didn't fully compete last year. If we normalize his finishes and compare them against his GM competitors we might get a better picture.

For all the races last year where Eric took the green flag and saw the checker he had an average finish of 2.28.

The same number for last year's champion is 3.14.
Second place in the championship had an average finish of 4.04.


Richard P.

Please tell me the next set of lotto numbers.

GlennCMC70
03-26-2007, 03:43 PM
I'm a bit confused since the numbers don't really seem to be backing up this huge disparity.


As has been stated before, Eric didn't fully compete last year. If we normalize his finishes and compare them against his GM competitors we might get a better picture.

For all the races last year where Eric took the green flag and saw the checker he had an average finish of 2.28.

The same number for last year's champion is 3.14.
Second place in the championship had an average finish of 4.04.


Richard P.

wow, those number will leave a mark! very sobering numbers Richard.

AllZWay
03-26-2007, 03:54 PM
[quote=RichardP]Please tell me the next set of lotto numbers.

3 9 28 70 79 95 :P

CMC17
03-26-2007, 04:00 PM
I'm a bit confused since the numbers don't really seem to be backing up this huge disparity.


As has been stated before, Eric didn't fully compete last year. If we normalize his finishes and compare them against his GM competitors we might get a better picture.

For all the races last year where Eric took the green flag and saw the checker he had an average finish of 2.28.

The same number for last year's champion is 3.14.
Second place in the championship had an average finish of 4.04.


Richard P.

wow, those number will leave a mark! very sobering numbers Richard.

Too bad they are misleading as hell. Go have some more kool-aid.

I want a GM person to tell me who, in 2007, has won more races and has the lap records for each track.

Thought so... very "sobering" don't ya think?

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

jeffburch
03-26-2007, 04:04 PM
I think all should cool it rebutting Eric.
We've been down this road before.
I have been down this road.
No biggie.

Me, just keeping my head down and staying busy.
See, I prepare my car so that AT the track I have 100 of my expensive track time to concentrate on setup and my line.
Keeping my head in the game.
If the car is ill prepped then working on it AT the track takes my mind off of the track.
The GM cars seem to be more reliable at the track.
Just an observation.

jb

Mike Bell
03-26-2007, 04:31 PM
Train wreck again, this time EV leaves the building. Great. :roll:

Al - no apology needed. It was clearly a joke to me. However, you state you've "had more discussions on this topic than I can remember" yet threw up the stone wall here from where I sit. Not sure how it could have gone differently but you say it is even, I say it isn't.

Statisticians Emeritus - Not sure who's barometer is best but clearly the GM guys in Texas are FAST AS HELL. PERIOD. If the WC GM drivers suck that's fine, but the CMC GM drivers in TEXAS KICK ASS. Spin it, shake it, hold it upside down but the numbers are starting to lean to one side heavily and the laptimes (which seldom make the stats) are WAY OFF THE CHARTS lol.

Not sure how to slice it thicker or thinner, but battling against you in a Blue Oval is a futile endeavor IMHO.

CMC17
03-26-2007, 04:44 PM
I think all should cool it rebutting Eric.
We've been down this road before.
I have been down this road.
No biggie.

Me, just keeping my head down and staying busy.
See, I prepare my car so that AT the track I have 100 of my expensive track time to concentrate on setup and my line.
Keeping my head in the game.
If the car is ill prepped then working on it AT the track takes my mind off of the track.
The GM cars seem to be more reliable at the track.
Just an observation.

jb

Thanks JB, but I'm out of here.

Party over.

mitchntx
03-26-2007, 04:50 PM
Too bad they are misleading as hell. Go have some more kool-aid.

I want a GM person to tell me who, in 2007, has won more races and has the lap records for each track.

Thought so... very "sobering" don't ya think?

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

You are correct Eric. And I can say so because I was talking the same stuff in 2004 and 2005. Did GM get any "help"? Nope, I was told to sit down and shut up numerous times.

So instead of going away mad, Glenn and I put our collective heads together and made a concerted effort to make us better, whether it be in prep or on-line.

Your issue is keeping the car on the track or making the field. That ought to be the "sobering" thought, not asking for rules relief. It didn't come our way, so I doubt it will yours.

Again, I say that because I was seeing the world JUST AS YOU DESCRIBE.

The difference between you and I is that you have the talent. You've shown that time and time again. So you can either walk away with your tail between your legs or redouble your efforts and show us all what your moxy really is.

GlennCMC70
03-26-2007, 04:55 PM
what about when Eric held all the track records?
what if all you Ford drivers suck? and we GM drivers are so, so?
the way it is now that your all upset about is the way it was back in 2005. so its changed for now, it may again in 2008.
there is one more event to get to half way. there is alot of 2007 left, not sure why some are giving up. i didnt in '05, '06 and i'm not in '07 no matter how much of a lead i have.
the 3rd gen compaired to the ford has the same front suspension, engine size, and trans, but is longer and wider and is @ the same weight limit.
i honestly think Eric is not really serious about all this and is just trying to get in peoples head. he is known for the head games he plays. i see it as nothing but an attempt to get back to the top.
me, i'm going to keep working the rules layed before me. there are 3-4 places in the rules book i havent even addressed yet and i'm working on 2 of the 3 now.
looking over info i have from MSR-C, i think the car has a solid mid 1:23.xxx in it w/ the changes i'm making this week. but hey, so does JB's car and he's 1 tenth closer to getting there than me.
Eric set the bar high w/ wins and lap times. we worked to get to where he was, and now he's done? right. :roll: i dont see Eric as a quitter. this is all just a game.

off to the garage. hammer, hammer, weld, weld. look the car over. fab more stuff. call LG, money buys speed.

oh, and i'm done w/ this one again, and in fewer trys than Eric.

CMC17
03-26-2007, 05:32 PM
You guys just don't get it and I'm fkn tired of posting to try and make you see the light.

Yes, I was fast out of the gate, but I know when there isn't anymore to be had out of a platform. What you see in CMC17 is the fastest it will ever be or probably any other Mustang. That's still almost a second off from what it needs to be and be competitive with the superior GM platform. If another Mustang matches the GM times and breaks records - obviously there will be cheating involved.

You guys had to come up to speed and it was easy wins in '04/'05. Some tried to bend the rules with more power to make up for lack of driving experience back then. It wasn't because you couldn't go faster, it was because the driver couldn't make the car go any faster. I knew it was a matter of time before parity and then eventually the non-Fairmont platform would lose out in the end. It has and since this is "grass roots" racing, I'm not going to sink 20k into testing different parts and practice.

For those that have to win and at all cost for a $5 trophy that might or might not be spelled correctly, I think you are a bad example of what this series is intended to be about.

Fast forward today. There isn't a Mustang that can touch the times of what the GM cars have laid down. Even ones that have the same amount of time and effort put into them. It's a fact not fiction.

I've read enough posts in this thread that it has become very clear everyone is just comparing all the GM's to a single Mustang. Go back and re-read if you don't believe me. No one other than Mike has supported the Mustang side of things and I'm deeply disappointed in the other's.

Have fun in your sandbox. I will find another one to get my adrenaline rush/fix without the headache of the blind and deaf.

Nothing like AI priced (parts/time/practice) cars in CMC. =(

jeffburch
03-26-2007, 05:59 PM
Glenn, we shouldn't have done the nationals dude.
Getting our asses handed to us on a chrystal platter ruined it for some here in Tx.

jb

mitchntx
03-26-2007, 06:03 PM
For those that have to win and at all cost for a $5 trophy that might or might not be spelled correctly, I think you are a bad example of what this series is intended to be about.


But Eric, are you not doing the same thing by proclaiming "change the rules or I quit?"

I didn't race at MSR-C and had a great time working with you trouble-shooting your spark plug.

When I show up to race, I know I stand no chance at winning unless someone else has misfortune. But winning isn't the reason I show up.

I show up to help folks trouble-shoot spark plug issues ...

Any one who has any trend or QA auditing experience knows you can't take such a narrow slice in time and make far-reaching conclusions.

My Dad always said what goes around, comes around.

As a concession, I too find it odd that some in Ford camp can find "the number" and others can't. That just doesn't make sense to me.

Consider for a moment that Texas CMC has risen as the cream of the crop as far as competitiveness goes. It was proven at Nationals and backed up at Road Atlanta.

You, my friend, are responsible for raising the bar high.

CMC17
03-26-2007, 06:29 PM
Time for me to move on. I wish for everyone to be safe and enjoy what they like to do.

I'm far too competitive to run around the track knowing I don't stand a chance of winning and looks like I'm doing all of this for the wrong reasons.

Thank you to those that have taken a grass roots sport and turned it into a wallet/time sink to be competitive. :roll:

I'm sure there will eventually be someone to come along with a bigger wallet and start winning. That will only lead to other's to put more time/money in their ride and the cycle repeats.

Yep - No room at the inn for me anymore.

Camaro-Camaro-Challenge will live on, I'm sure.

mitchntx
03-26-2007, 07:14 PM
It's been fun, Eric.

Stop in from time to time and let us know how the ball room dancing is coming along. :wink:

jeffburch
03-26-2007, 07:14 PM
You, my friend, are responsible for raising the bar high.

I've said this myself recently.
It's your fault (credit) Eric.

jb

Boudy
03-26-2007, 07:57 PM
I'll keep this short because I don't have much to say.

First off, I personally think both camps are correct; to a point.

At this point in the CMC world it's fair to say:

Eric Varner is one of the few who we can all admit has gotten all out of a Fox platform that can be had. Let's face it, there are certainly no leaps and bounds left as has been experienced by the GM platforms in recent seasons. Everything gets compaired to his single Mustang because he the most experienced driver who has put in the most effort. Discounting this point is an insult to the man and his accomplishments.

Glenn and Jeff live and breath CMC and the laptimes show it. Jeff took a CA car that was supposed to be good and changed it until it was Texas good. Glenn and Mitch did the same thing with there platform.

With these two points in mind, I ask this, "Why is it so hard to believe that when each platform gets developed to it's potential and driven properly, a lack of parity may emerge."

It seems to me that CMC TX has progressed to the point where both platforms have been developed to or near to their potentials. The bar is being set here for the rest of the country. Likewise, rule changes and input should be spoken loudly from here in TX. California can't make rules regarding parity when thier platforms are not fully developed. So remember, present rules were written by guys driving cars that were less than fully developed.

I have not the experience to honestly make a judgment either way. I only believe that the GM's are faster when fully developed because the GM guys keep telling me so and then proving it on track. What some are typing is not what they honestly believe. Or maybe they feal it is an insult to their accplishments to admit publically that just maybe...

We see ourselves as the emerging CMC cream of the country and to provide guildance for our series' future, we'll need more open discussion than what is taking place. If we can't visit the issues without tossing hands up in frustration and beating fist on statistics, then what the hell good are we?

Boudy

mitchntx
03-26-2007, 08:08 PM
OK .. I'm done.

When reason and logic mix with emotion and ego, things go to hell in a hand basket.

I requested that you people refrain from using reason, facts and logic a long time ago. Apparently, that can't happen.

There is a vast disparity in logic platforms. So, until there are some rules changed, I'm out.

8)

jeffburch
03-26-2007, 08:36 PM
Parity schmarity.
Platform, or the man?
Balls?
12" brakes, are just 12" brakes.
http://www.texicanracing.com/nasatx/JeffBurch/CMC_passing_DIVX.avi
http://www.texicanracing.com/nasatx/JeffBurch/RA_Sun_Qual_redPorch_divx_MQ.avi

jb

GlennCMC70
03-26-2007, 08:47 PM
Eric, i honestly think you have gotten all you can out of your car in current form. i dont think the platform is maxed out. prove to me where you have maxed out the limits of shocks, the limits of aero, the limits of weight distribution in the car.
i also think you are wrong in your assesment of cubic dollars in the GM cars.
i put $850 in my motor. not rebuilding one, i bought a $850 motor back in '04. my rebuild cost $1700. thats all the money i put in my motor since i started racing. i picked up a $300 body shell. i got a $750 paint job. $100 in 12 OEM wheels. the list goes on. i dropped $700 on my front shock set-up. the shocks themselves are $159 each from Day Motorsports. i get my springs from them too.
i've done 2 practice days and 1 test day in 2.5 seasons.
where is the money in my set-up?
brakes? nope. run the very same calipers since day one backin '05. not even rebuilt them once yet. i bought 4 rotors in 2.5 years. i had a used front hub fail, 1 used hub.
sorry, it cost me $10K to build my car and get all my safery gear. suit and all. i race on about $4-5K per year total for all race related costs.

i dont see it.

GlennCMC70
03-26-2007, 08:50 PM
the $100,000 question is, what is it w/ the GM's that gives them an advantage? what adjustment do you think they need? Eric?

Boudy
03-26-2007, 08:58 PM
Parity schmarity.
Platform, or the man?
Balls?
12" brakes, are just 12" brakes.
http://www.texicanracing.com/nasatx/JeffBurch/CMC_passing_DIVX.avi
http://www.texicanracing.com/nasatx/JeffBurch/RA_Sun_Qual_redPorch_divx_MQ.avi

jb


Dude, we know you're the man but that's not the disscussion now is it? And when I'm on the podium, I'll have you to thank for making me "Cinch it up"

Boudy

Al Fernandez
03-26-2007, 09:17 PM
No, this is not turning into a "how to achieve parity thread". We can certainly start one for that purpose, in some other section of this forum. This particular thread has gone way too far already. This was about new rules for CMC-2 brakes, and its gone WAY off and aint coming back, so its over.

Mike, closing the door wasnt my intent (still isnt, this just isnt the right place). There are few things I love more than a good argument (ask Mitch!) so it isnt that I dont want to talk about parity any more, I'll talk about it as long as we need to. Its also not that I think its perfect and therefore never needs to be adjusted. Hell, I'm the one that tries to rally people up at the end of each year to convince them to submit recommendations in writting. I was just trying to paint a picture that it isnt a new topic to me, or anyone else that's been involved in deciding on rules for CMC for the last five or so years.

Todd Covini
03-27-2007, 11:49 PM
Thanks for locking, Al.
Interesting reading as I catch up on things after being away for a bit.

FWIW...I held all the CMC track records for a period of time in 2003 :?

...and when everyone was looking at me, I KNEW I wasn't the fastest, nor the best prepared car and it was only a matter of time before y'all caught up and passed me. :lol:

-=- Todd