2016 CMC Rules

I am trying to figure out what is in the pipe for 2016, I am going to submit one for the slotted rotors that we discussed a few months ago, do we have anything else?

---1) Tyler Gardner / TX / #013 / Phone
---2) 7.32.8.3
---3) Rotors shall be cast iron only and may be vented. No cross drilling is allowed.
---4)
---------->a) Will decrease series cost because slotted rotors are much easier to find.
---------->b) Will promote series growth because slotted rotors are much easier to obtain.
---------->c) Slotted rotors provide no apparent competitive advantage and we could share rings with AI in a bind.

I am growing tired of welding up K members.
aftermarket tubular members which accept stock arms are under $500
Dan Allford #82

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Allford

I am growing tired of welding up K members.
aftermarket tubular members which accept stock arms are under $500
Dan Allford #82

---

How about going to a harder tire instead? I'm afraid all we do with tubular K-members is move the issued somewhere else.

JJ

These weren't issues prior to CMC2. Neither were rear ends, transmissions, among other things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AllZWay

These weren't issues prior to CMC2. Neither were rear ends, transmissions, among other things.

---

I disagree. I don't think the changes to CMC2 have any effect on K members. Guys were welding them up back in original CMC trim, too. Plenty of AI Camaro's like Patterson running the stock k-member without cracking. I have had one crack but my car is still running 45 less rwhp than stock. Of course when I go over a curb coming into rattlesnake I don't think the 30 extra hp is what cracks a k member. I don't think the power has any impact on our rearends either and don't see that we have any more problems with diffs than before. Transmissions may be correct but that seems to only be the T5 but again driver input is going to be the biggest factor with it.

I didn't even think there was a road racing k member available anymore? Only weak drag units.

Now I'm all for going to a harder tire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BryanL

I disagree. I don't think the changes to CMC2 have any effect on K members. Guys were welding them up back in original CMC trim, too. Plenty of AI Camaro's like Patterson running the stock k-member without cracking. I have had one crack but my car is still running 45 less rwhp than stock. Of course when I go over a curb coming into rattlesnake I don't think the 30 extra hp is what cracks a k member. I don't think the power has any impact on our rearends either and don't see that we have any more problems with diffs than before. Transmissions may be correct but that seems to only be the T5 but again driver input is going to be the biggest factor with it.

I didn't even think there was a road racing k member available anymore? Only weak drag units.

Now I'm all for going to a harder tire.

---

I never tore any of these up until CMC2...then went through several rears and two transmissions. Still haven't torn up a k-member though.

Maybe you guys should buy a mustang. Ford builds k members that don't crack....just sayin haha (kidding)

We need to switch to nittos! They last a long time and have good grip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BryanL

I disagree. I don't think the changes to CMC2 have any effect on K members. Guys were welding them up back in original CMC trim, too. Plenty of AI Camaro's like Patterson running the stock k-member without cracking. I have had one crack but my car is still running 45 less rwhp than stock. Of course when I go over a curb coming into rattlesnake I don't think the 30 extra hp is what cracks a k member. I don't think the power has any impact on our rearends either and don't see that we have any more problems with diffs than before. Transmissions may be correct but that seems to only be the T5 but again driver input is going to be the biggest factor with it.

I didn't even think there was a road racing k member available anymore? Only weak drag units.

Now I'm all for going to a harder tire.

---

Where are they cracking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dtanker65

Where are they cracking?

---

Not sure on all of them of course but I had experience with it cracking at where the factory weld was done. The factory weld isn't the best from what I'm told-chalk up another win for the Mustang.

Procter-if you would use the clutch that wouldn't happen. I know the AI guys have had some diff problems but didn't know of yours. Was yours the trans or the clutch? Or did the clutch cause the trans to get hurt? I think I remember you lost reverse for awhile? How many miles were on that trans and how many on the track? I'm just a big fan of the T56 if it's original or was put together correctly. The T56 to me is the strongest piece in the drivetrain at our power levels.

The first was just the reverse... stock 165k... not really a racing issue.

The second was the gear rings that made it shift bad. It was repaired. The third I haven't ever torn it apart.. won't shift 2-3.

---1) Tyler Gardner / TX / #013 / Phone
---2) 7.11.10 (new)
---3) Ford 5.0 cars may use aftermarket internally balanced and forged crankshafts
---4)
---------->a) 4 5.0 catastrophic crankshaft failures in the past few years
---------->b) Will promote series growth because of reliable engines.
---------->c) Rule change is only for durability and there is no performance gain
---------->d) When mine broke the cars behind me lost control, oil and sharp metal on the track is a serious safety issue that could cause loss of equipment or life.

Examples:
Tyler Gardner CMC 013 MSR-H 2015
Michael Mosty CMC 11 2014 and 2011
Wade Zimmer CMC 2015

I think I'll stick with my cracking k members. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supercharged111

I think I'll stick with my cracking k members. :D

---

I could have fixed a cracked k member and been racing this weekend instead of driving all over Houston and buying a motor that ended up not working out :)
Can someone post pics of the k-member cracks in question?
Also, I have a LS1 k member for sale if anyone needs one.

[QUOTE=BryanL;73519]Not sure on all of them of course but I had experience with it cracking at where the factory weld was done. The factory weld isn't the best from what I'm told-chalk up another win for the Mustang.

I looked at the one on my S197 Mustang and I am thinking that it has to have been heat treated after it was welded out. It is well supported by the inner fender/shock towers too, but if it were to get bent or cracked I doubt it would be repairable. The car maintains alignment remarkably well, in spite of my occasional errors in judgment.

I grafted a 79 Trans Am front sub-frame on to an old truck once, and the factory welds on it were the worst I had ever seen. I re-welded the unit before installing it using a skip welding technique. All of the data I have been able to find regarding modification of production car front chassis members for racing, calls for skip welding reinforcement to maintain as much of the original temper as possible. Welding up a beefy repair in one spot creates a soft area in the part that will yield causing alignment issues or failure to the adjacent areas. I wish I knew more about the K member on the LS1 car.

Were me, I think I would gather as much information as I could about the common failure points in the K member, find a good K member, and Tig weld gussets in the problem areas being very careful to control the heat affected zone.

On second thought my 69 Mach 1 had some of the worst welding I have ever seen. During resto I found holes blown through it and giant mig globs with wire stubs sticking out. All covered up with factory seam sealant. I am guessing the welders at Ford bought a lot of beer for the pooky shooters to keep their jobs :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mach1

I am trying to figure out what is in the pipe for 2016, I am going to submit one for the slotted rotors that we discussed a few months ago, do we have anything else?

---1) Tyler Gardner / TX / #013 / Phone
---2) 7.32.8.3
---3) Rotors shall be cast iron only and may be vented. No cross drilling is allowed.
---4)
---------->a) Will decrease series cost because slotted rotors are much easier to find.
---------->b) Will promote series growth because slotted rotors are much easier to obtain.
---------->c) Slotted rotors provide no apparent competitive advantage and we could share rings with AI in a bind.

---

If we can get this passed, I am trying these next, hopefully no wallerin issues.

http://www.racingbrake.com/Rotor-rin...05-02-311k.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mach1

If we can get this passed, I am trying these next, hopefully no wallerin issues.

---

How long will those things last?

I don't use a stock k-member. I put a UMI road race k-member in the car in 2006. No cracking to date. http://umiperformance.com/catalog/in...roducts_id=680

Reverse has gone out in my T56 multiple times.

RCR #4 and #5 are up if you guys would like to comment, this is for slotted rotors and better cranks for the fords.

http://www.camaromustangchallenge.co...forum.php?f=10

What's the likelihood of the 5.0 crank upgrade being approved?

As a camaro racer I have zero problem with this.

Looks like both you and Daniel (bought Wade's car, broke crank during his first outing at TWS) would be impacted immediately due to having new motor builds pending for 2016.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pranav

What's the likelihood of the 5.0 crank upgrade being approved?

As a camaro racer I have zero problem with this.

Looks like both you and Daniel (bought Wade's car, broke crank during his first outing at TWS) would be impacted immediately due to having new motor builds pending for 2016.

---

Yeah, I have everything pending order, I am going to put a junkyard 302 in for TWS then I am going to pull it and hopefully put a solid motor in for next year. My pan is semi trashed too, cam may be in bad shape, my distributor is also ruined. Good game ford, guess the late model 5.0 was really made for trucks.

I threw this up on the CMC forum.

http://www.camaromustangchallenge.co...?p=41277#41277

I never ran this by Al, just throwing it up here as I've busted the 1 Oct deadline and it may be too late. We have tolerances for fuel pressure and ignition timing, I think we need to specify our tolerance for restrictor plates but I don't know what's reasonable.

3.11.1 Fuel Pressure Tolerance shall be +/- 2psi for EFI cars. Carbureted cars are not subject to a fuel
pressure tolerance.
3.11.2 Timing tolerance shall be +/- 1 degree

What do you guys think?

There is a rule about a tolerance for all measurement not otherwise specified.

Geez, it was directly before my quoted text.

3.11 Tolerances
Unless otherwise specified, all published measurements infer a tolerance of +/- one-half of the last specified
decimal place. All rounding will be done to the nearest decimal place that is specified in these rules. In a
case where a measurement falls exactly on the halfway mark it shall be rounded up or down in favor of the
competitor.

So if a competitor specifies that he is running a 40mm restrictor plate, it must be 39.5-40.5mm?

7.21.4 All Cars may install a restrictor between the air filter and intake manifold to reduce horsepower and
torque. The diameter and thickness of the restrictor plate orifice(s) shall be noted on the Dyno Sheet and
must match at all times. Carbureted cars may install a mechanical throttle stop on the carburetor linkage for
the same purpose. Throttle stop dimensions must be noted on the Dyno Sheet for inspection purposes and
must match at all times.

Below from the dyno sheet:

Restrictor size, # of orifices, diameters, thickness:

So the rules don't specify how accurately the restrictor plate's diameter must be annotated on the dyno sheet. Is what I said above accurate and sufficient?

I'd say so, especially given that when I was having restrictors made they were in 1mm increments.