Rule Change Requests for 2024 season

CMC racers

It is the rule season once again and like previous years we have the same rules of engagement as far as submitting your rule proposals. Please have these submitted by October 20th for consideration.

You can post your RCR here if you like for public comment but please submit formally to your series director.


As always, the rule submittals are to clarify, reduce cost of operation or building a CMC car, improves safety or enables closer competition or increases the longevity of the car.

Your role as a CMC competitor is twofold:

1, submit Rules Change Requests (RCR) for things you believe make sense

2, To discuss your RCRs and those others submitted with your fellow racers and, most importantly, with your Regional Director.

Feel free to create a thread for your RCR, but please keep these threads limited to one specific topic to make it easier for everyone to follow along. Keep these discussions civil and remember that it's perfectly ok for others to have a different and even conflicting opinion to your own.

To submit an RCR for the CMC Directors for consideration, please submit it to your regional director via email with a cc to Bob Denton, National Director, using the format below. Your regional director is your representative at the official discussions, and the two of you discussing your suggestion first will help that greatly.

For those that are new or unfamiliar, the Directors discuss and vote on the RCRs. When we're done, we submit the whole thing to NASA HQ for their review, suggestions, and final approval.

I encourage you to do the appropriate due diligence. Provide real evidence and details. Read old RCRs, read the director's cut threads explaining what RCRs were rejected and why. If it's the same RCR and nothing has changed, it's logical to expect the decision to remain unchanged.



RULE CHANGE REQUESTS (RCR) MUST BE SUBMITTED IN THE FOLLOWING FORMAT TO BE CONSIDERED (no a post online isn't enough, Send it to your regional director):



---1) Name / Region / Car # / Contact Info (email or phone, etc)

---2) Rule reference # (ex.- Rule 3.2)

---3) Recommended Revised Wording (saying make rule 5.4 clearer isn't enough! How would you word it?)

---4) Reasoning for change MUST include at least 1 of the following:

---------->a) Will decrease the series cost because...

---------->b) Will increase driver safety because...

---------->c) Will promote series growth because...

---------->d) Will improve competition because...

---------->e) Will provide more clarity because...



HINT Requests which score points in all categories will have better chances of being accepted than those which score points in 1 category (or worse yet, go against the reasoning's above.)

I’m curious about changing the cost limit for struts and would like to understand if there is a benchmark being looked at regularly. Except for basic single adj Koni or worse options, nothing is really available in the required budget these days. If I tear up one of my ASTs I don’t think I can get anything similar in performance for the required budget. I’m not trying to spend a ton of money but with recent inflation it seems this rule may need to be adjusted. I recently bought some koni DA inserts alone without a strut housing and they were $500 each.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gerno

I’m curious about changing the cost limit for struts and would like to understand if there is a benchmark being looked at regularly. Except for basic single adj Koni or worse options, nothing is really available in the required budget these days. If I tear up one of my ASTs I don’t think I can get anything similar in performance for the required budget. I’m not trying to spend a ton of money but with recent inflation it seems this rule may need to be adjusted. I recently bought some koni DA inserts alone without a strut housing and they were $500 each.

---

The issue with discontinued parts probably needs to be discussed. What is the value of AST shock/struts if you can't actually purchase them? For reference, Dan's Camaro has them and I don't want them to go away but I'm not sure it's fair to run them. I also don't think it's fair to require people to throw away good parts because they aren't available anymore. Awkward...

Richard P.

The rule was originally set with the 4th gen Koni DA as the standard for the price limit. You can get Mustang Koni DA’s for about $450 each but not sure what the current pricing is for the GM’s.

The AST’s were made back around 2007 specifically for CMC with the price cap in line as you could buy them for $400 each which was the limit back then.
I know you can’t buy them new anymore but I got my AST’s rebuilt last year for $950 for all 4.

If you have any other suggestions for dampers you are looking at please let us know so we can consider them for a rule change. Thanks!!

"6.33.6 Any non-remote reservoir shock absorbers, of any origin, that are readily available to the public from a retail source for less than $1,000 a pair may be used provided they attach to the OEM stock unmodified mounting points and do not alter the stock geometry, with the exceptions outlined in section6.33.10 below."


Ast's are not readily available to the public from a retail source. Period. They haven't been for a long time. It's great for the people that have them but if you wanted them, you are out of luck.


Richard P.

Thanks for the context. I’m not trying to outlaw the older shocks, just trying to get an idea on the background. As of now the Koni DA option has increased and I know others are using the QA1s that are also outside budgets now too even though they are a pretty basic shock. I’ll put a rule change request in later this week. My goal is only to align to market inflation.

I guess the term "readily available" is not the best choice of words and I will submit a RCR to see what the other directors feel about updating this wording. If anyone feels the AST's are not legal per the intent of CMC then that can be discussed as well.

Thank you for bringing the topic up Steve. These are the exact things we need to look to update as inflation has been crazy lately and impacts some parts more than others.

For what it's worth, here are my $0.02. I've been wanting a set of ASTs since I joined to sport back in 2018 and haven't been able to get a set in all these years. It's a strange situation with them going out of production, and some competitors being able to purchase them when they were legal by the rules. By the current reading of the rules, they do not appear legal to me. A bit of a complicated situation, I don't necessarily want the rules to change causing a bunch of folks to have to swap dampers but I do think the ASTs are an advantage.

For a Mustang, there aren't many damper options for factory geometry at all even if the cost cap was increased.

Josh

Is there anything in the rules about parts that were "Readily Available" but stopped? AST's aren't the first part people have used which the manufacturer quit making and there are tons of items which aren't readily available anymore. My understanding is from campfire talk that parts which were once available will always be legal. Doubt that is in the rules though. I do know the rules say something like if there is a grey area then the racer needs to have documentation of approval. Personally I think that is BS. If there is something that requires specific documentation and approval by a director then all of those items should be listed in the rulebook for everyone to see.

Shocks-As Richard posted the ruled don't say you are allowed to do anything to the shock. Which is interesting since people have them modified with different inserts like a JRI which could be better than an AST. People have also changed the valving/shim stacks or whatever. "If not specifically allowed, any modifications are prohibited." Seems to me like you aren't allowed to modify the shock at all so maybe there needs to be some language as to what is legal and what isn't? Remember Spec Iron and the shock dyno.

How about finding a readily available shock for both platforms like a Bilstein HD. It would decrease series cost, promote growth with a cheaper alternative than trying to find an obsolete part or modifying an available part and eliminate testing of different valve settings, which should improve competition making everyone on a more level playing field.

Check the Brake Caliper price limit as well as those appear to be way over the current limit.

As for parts that aren't readily available that can get way down a rabbit hole quick. Spoilers come to mind as I'm not aware that there is a single available spoiler anyone is running that's "Readily Available from a retail source for less than $700. Wheels.

Then where do you stop for things not readily available?

Shocks, calipers, and rear wings/spoilers are covered by the "readily available" tag in the rules. Of those three, I only see shocks being an actual competitive advantage. Others might disagree.

Thought experiment: What is the actual current value of a set of AST shocks? You can't buy them new but you could buy a set used from someone who has them. Do we think there is anyone who would sell their used stuff for the value currently listed in the CMC rules??? Without asking him, I am certain Josh would pay more than the value in the rules for a set. How much more is the question? Twice the price? $5k? $10K??? Where is that number for either the buyer or the seller?

Would it be fair if Josh paid Michael $5k for his set of shocks with the intent of gaining a competitive advantage?

Richard P.

I've always viewed Readily Available as At the Time from a retailer, not as Always and Forever available. Otherwise, as with ASTs, when the company stops making that model, then that makes all previous ones sold illegal. Same if a company goes out of business, or is sold and changes the name. If Bilstein changes from a double nut to a nylock and thus change the part number, the old part number is now obsolete, all previous shocks are illegal? I don't think that's the intent.

*For the record I have AST shocks on my car and several spare shocks/parts for them.

Yes, Gary that's the banter I heard from former Regional/National directors around the campfire about a part being available or discontinued. Problem is that was 10-15 years ago and things have changed. Now we have a situation where there is an advantage or there is a perceived advantage in being able to obtain a certain shock or spoiler which isn't available anymore.
To me the problem is when there isn't a viable alternative available and someone running behind me in 9th place would be or believes they would be faster than me if only they had my AST shocks. Same goes for me when I look at a Spoiler which hasn't been sold by the business for years is on the car in front of me after it was adjusted based on the current track conditions.

I don't believe the Intent of the class is to have parts on cars which give a perceived advantage or advantage when there isn't a readily available alternative. I also don't believe the alternative should have to be custom made/machined at any cost as that isn't the intent of this class. For those that want to custom build their own shocks/spoilers they should move to AI. The goal of the class is to protect racers from themselves and limit where someone could spend thousands or ten thousand dollars by having a custom built shock that over the course of testing and sending back for different inserts gives the car an advantage or a perceived advantage. Same goes for a custom built spoiler that is adjustable or through the use of custom adjustable shocks on the back and wind tunnel testing gives an advantage or a perceived advantage.

This isn't about a part like a knock sensor, opti, or wheel where there are plenty of available options which don't provide a performance advantage.

How do you correct the perceived advantage? Get rid of any spoiler/wing and identify the current shocks available for each platform which are allowed to be run just like we identify certain parts which are allowed throughout the rulebook. Give a two year window where you are still allowed to run your custom or unavailable shocks and then become compliant. Reason being is that within two years you will likely be rebuilding the shocks which are causing issue and the cost of a rebuild could be close to the cost of a new set of legal shocks.