Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

V8 - RWD - 4 Adult passengers - Live Axle cars.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • V8 - RWD - 4 Adult passengers - Live Axle cars.

    Y'all:

    Got an opinion of this solution? Share it. This suggestion is for the 2003 season.

    I'm suggesting that the CCC study the effect of taking the 'V8 - RWD - 4 adult passenger - live axle' cars out of the A family and moving them to the B family. If you add another B class at the top (4 classes instead of 3) it appears very workable. For example, Dave Barker's car which turns almost identical times to Chris's BMW, could run in B/SS1 with 4 or 5 points.

    I'm not trying to make it sound simple, I'm just suggesting a different solution.

    Regards,

    Jud Buchanan
    Competitor #37

  • #2
    Jud , I'm really glad you let us know that we have a few months to persue this . I doubt that in B class with the B calculated performance index that my car would be higher than either the E36 or E 46 M 3 BMWs which means that there would be no need to increase the number of B classes .

    I do have 2 concerns though , neither of which are serious.

    1 ) if you move all Cars Called Pony Cars ( CCPC) into B class as well as the cars that have already been slated to move ( 944 and Supra ) then there will be very little left in A class .

    2 ) What would you do with a 2001 Mustang Cobra with an independant rear suspension as was run this year ? Is it a CCPC ( as defined above ) or not ? The CCC seems to feel that the definition of CCPCs is that they have a live rear axle yet they refer to this car as a "Pony Car " . It seems to me that the definition of CCPC is that the origiinal car is a Mustang . Camaro or Firebird and actually has little to do with other defining characteristics. I have driven late model 4 cam cobras and their engines have little in common as far as feel goes with our older tech GM V8s ( yet they are still CCPC ).

    I guess my feeling Jud is that moving all non vette's to B class is perfectly ok with me and will foster good competition .
    Most of the time Chris Sorensen beat me this past year but I'm quite prepared to live with that . ( All I really want is to make sure I'm gridded AHEAD of him at Cayuga instead of having to follow in the gravel he kicks up when I start behind him !!. Chris knows what I mean .)
    Mobil 1 Time-Attack # 4, CCC Member

    Comment


    • #3
      Dave Barker,

      I'm just suggesting a potential solution and offering to help study how it might workout. Let's just see where it goes....

      Originally posted by Dave Barker
      Jud , I'm really glad you let us know that we have a few months to persue this . I doubt that in B class with the B calculated performance index that my car would be higher than either the E36 or E 46 M 3 BMWs which means that there would be no need to increase the number of B classes .

      "Jud's reply" OK....but 2002 is already decided, a reg book is at the printers. We're talking about 2003. I'm following the reg book procedure. If this turns out to be a workable solution, then somebody can post it for all to see and then the Director (or his committee or ?) can decide if it will be a change for 2003.

      I do have 2 concerns though , neither of which are serious.

      1 ) if you move all Cars Called Pony Cars ( CCPC) into B class as well as the cars that have already been slated to move ( 944 and Supra ) then there will be very little left in A class .


      You're getting too far ahead...slow down!

      2 ) What would you do with a 2001 Mustang Cobra with an independant rear suspension as was run this year ? Is it a CCPC ( as defined above ) or not ? The CCC seems to feel that the definition of CCPCs is that they have a live rear axle yet they refer to this car as a "Pony Car " . It seems to me that the definition of CCPC is that the origiinal car is a Mustang . Camaro or Firebird and actually has little to do with other defining characteristics. I have driven late model 4 cam cobras and their engines have little in common as far as feel goes with our older tech GM V8s ( yet they are still CCPC ).


      "Jud's reply" I want to focus on the V8 - RWD - 4 passenger - live axle...let's call them V8 RFL's for short.

      I guess my feeling Jud is that moving all non vette's to B class is perfectly ok with me and will foster good competition
      Most of the time Chris Sorensen beat me this past year but I'm quite prepared to live with that .

      That's what two cars being competitive is all about.

      ( All I really want is to make sure I'm gridded AHEAD of him at Cayuga instead of having to follow in the gravel he kicks up when I start behind him !!. Chris knows what I mean .)
      "Jud's reply" Let's focus on V8 RFL. If Chris is causing a slippery track condition maybe you should point it out to the Clerk of the Course and he can be flagged off the track. In the meantime, "let focus on V8 RFL" and see what comes of it.

      Jud

      Comment


      • #4
        It's also worth knowing that not all live axled cars are created equal. Those without Panhard rods or with leave suspensions are a much different animal than the more "modern" rear suspension found on a 4th gen Camaro with its lower control arm designs and Panhard. Older Mustangs, for instance, are slippery flexy fliers to be sure, that love to swap ends over rough surfaces.

        I repeat my comment from this time last year. I can have input, but thankfully I don't need to make a decision. FWIW, I don't mind hanging out with the 'vette guys... well, anywhere but Fabi where power just seems to work against me around 1/2 the course. I'm taking this year mostly as a "searching for reliability" year, anyway. I do somewhat worry that my car in particular will be all by its lonesome in a BSP class and it usually seriously outclasses the BSP cars that are in there a the moment - remember the ASP-classed Mustangs that showed up last year and discovered Eric, Timo and I, the hard way? They never returned, which is a shame.
        Last edited by Shaman; 01-07-2002, 11:31 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Shaman
          It's also worth knowing that not all live axled cars are created equal. Those without Panhard rods or with leave suspensions are a much different animal than the more "modern" rear suspension found on a 4th gen Camaro with its lower control arm designs and Panhard. Older Mustangs, for instance, are slippery flexy fliers to be sure, that love to swap ends over rough surfaces.
          As was pointed out in an earlier post by Dave Pratte, the rear suspension on 4th generation F-bodies is the same as on 1975 Monza's and Vega's. In fact, the torque arm / parhard rod combination traces it's roots back to Ford trucks from the forties. If anything has improved the performance of this suspension system it's more as a result of advancements in chassis rigidity which has allowed more conservative roll stiffness values - this results in the contact patches staying on the pavement even over uneven surfaces.

          Originally posted by Shaman
          I repeat my comment from this time last year. I can have input, but thankfully I don't need to make a decision. FWIW, I don't mind hanging out with the 'vette guys... well, anywhere but Fabi where power just seems to work against me around 1/2 the course. I'm taking this year mostly as a "searching for reliability" year, anyway. I do somewhat worry that my car in particular will be all by its lonesome in a BSP class and it usually seriously outclasses the BSP cars that are in there a the moment - remember the ASP-classed Mustangs that showed up last year and discovered Eric, Timo and I, the hard way? They never returned, which is a shame.

          While I certainly respect your desire to run with the Vettes, that desire may not be as strong if or when the rumoured 427 small block with 500 ponies make it's appearance....although seeing is believing, few if any can drive a C4 like he can!

          As for the ASP Mustangs that never returned, I agree that it's a shame, but things can change.

          I also appreciate your comment about searching for reliability. I go to the track to drive my car not work on it....but somehow it rarely seems to go that way.

          I enjoyed your comments.

          Jud

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm aware that the panhard rod setup is not a "new for the 90s" thing that started with the 4th gen f-body. But there are a number of cars, including the 80s Mustang, that didn't have them - and it does make a large difference. Now to resist looking like a fool, I am going on memory here - I seem to remember the 80s Mustang not having a panhard rod - if I'm wrong, don't shoot me.

            Comment


            • #7
              Mustangs do not have a Panhard Bar
              I have had a 79 ,81 , 89 and my 92 stang no Panhard Bar.
              The newer Mustang don`t have one either.
              1987 DECH MUSTANG
              1999 SI Civic
              BMW Trillium Club
              Birel Rotax Supplier


              Greg

              Comment


              • #8
                What about the new Cobra with independant rear suspension ?? It has the capability to handle better than any panhard rod car . Is it a "Pony car " when in actual fact it is very similar to a version of the 86-93 Supra which has has been moved to B class ? ( I assume the turbo version of the Supra has been moved as well) .

                Dave Barker
                Mobil 1 Time-Attack # 4, CCC Member

                Comment

                Working...
                X