Sponsored

SCCA CAM-C Thread

TeeLew

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2020
Threads
15
Messages
3,396
Reaction score
2,609
Location
So Cal
First Name
Tim
Vehicle(s)
Honda Odyssey, Toyota Tacoma, 89 GT project, 2020 Magnetic EB HPP w/ 6M
in what increments? I can't imagine weight shift of 0.25 inches is more than like 20-30lbs.
As long as you go up equally on each side, there will be zero weight shift...small angle formula and all that. That's not what we're doing; we're changing roll center heights relative to reach other. I'd expect a 5mm rake (difference between F & R ride height) change to be noticeable. These kits that throw an extra 20-30mm front to rear ride difference are making big handing changes that I don't think they really even understand.
 
Last edited:

kz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Threads
62
Messages
4,578
Reaction score
2,899
Location
West Chester, OH
Vehicle(s)
Mustangs & F150
It'll be cool to hear what you learn. If you're feeling frisky, ride height is a very powerful tuning tool.
It was sort of my intent - make large enough change that it is noticeable and see what happens, then make further changes.
Ride height impact I know very little about it but currently planning on making it even between sides and reduce the rake if there is any, meantime try to educate myself about it...
 

WItoTX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2021
Threads
15
Messages
2,885
Reaction score
3,536
Location
Houston
First Name
Kyle
Vehicle(s)
'17 GT350
It was sort of my intent - make large enough change that it is noticeable and see what happens, then make further changes.
Ride height impact I know very little about it but currently planning on making it even between sides and reduce the rake if there is any, meantime try to educate myself about it...
I'm looking forward to what you come up with. Hopefully it answers all my questions as to why Ford went one way, and every other "kit" on the market seems to go the other direction.
 

mustanghammer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2017
Threads
2
Messages
183
Reaction score
179
Location
Parkville Mo
First Name
Scott
Vehicle(s)
2017 Mustang GT
RE Spring rates

I had a 85 GT C Prepared Mustang I ran from 1990 to 2002. During that time spring rates went up inline with tire size increases and tire compound/design improvements. For example, when I started CP was limited to 10 inch wide wheels and 15" wheels were still the hot ticket. One year later and a bunch of us were squeezing 12" wide Firestone GT1 close out tires on 16x10" wheels. Within a few years 12" wide wheels with a 50lb penalty were allowed. So now we could put soft compound GT2/GT1/Trans-AM tires on the rims they were designed for.

From that point on, suspensions got more sophisticated and spring rates (wheel rates) went higher and higher. My car ended up with 1650lb springs on front and 780lb springs on the rear (all in the stock location) combined with the biggest OE Fox body sway bars. On fresh Hoosier rubber that car was loose and fast.

The point of the long read is that CAMC is an evolution. Right now a talented driver (not me) could take a fairly streetable car with some decent aero and do well with it. CP in the mid 90's was like that too. But a bunch serious efforts in CP put folks on notice. The same thing will happen in CAM and spring rates that seem extreme are just a symptom.

128021864IZlEiO_ph.jpg
 
Last edited:

Sponsored

NightmareMoon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Threads
62
Messages
7,056
Reaction score
6,315
Location
Austin
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT PP w/ Voodoo
Vehicle Showcase
1
I'm looking forward to what you come up with. Hopefully it answers all my questions as to why Ford went one way, and every other "kit" on the market seems to go the other direction.
i don’t think you can look to Ford for wisdom here. Even the GT350R and GT500 are essentially street cars and theres only so much spring rate that a normal buyer will tolerate. The ride quality just gets too busy when critically damped at high rates, so they go for the softer springs and use swaybars to help keep things flat. Same thing for camber. The street car compromises don’t make sense when we’re spending so much time on closed courses.

the experienced guys here have said the car starts to work on track above 500# front spring rates and theres some truth to that. The front of the car seems to need that much (or a bit more) support when you’re trail braking into corners and thats about where slaloms start to become effortless (i.e. not planning ahead for weight transfer reaction time)
 

kz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Threads
62
Messages
4,578
Reaction score
2,899
Location
West Chester, OH
Vehicle(s)
Mustangs & F150
Also GT500 CFTP seems to be approaching 1000 lbs/in rate in the rear - it's heavy, yes, but not that much heavier than a regular GT.
 

WItoTX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2021
Threads
15
Messages
2,885
Reaction score
3,536
Location
Houston
First Name
Kyle
Vehicle(s)
'17 GT350
i don’t think you can look to Ford for wisdom here. Even the GT350R and GT500 are essentially street cars and theres only so much spring rate that a normal buyer will tolerate. The ride quality just gets too busy when critically damped at high rates, so they go for the softer springs and use swaybars to help keep things flat. Same thing for camber. The street car compromises don’t make sense when we’re spending so much time on closed courses.

the experienced guys here have said the car starts to work on track above 500# front spring rates and theres some truth to that. The front of the car seems to need that much (or a bit more) support when you’re trail braking into corners and thats about where slaloms start to become effortless (i.e. not planning ahead for weight transfer reaction time)
Sadly, as much as I want to disagree with you, you are probably right. I like to believe that the "premium" tier (I don't know what else to call that GT350/R/500 level) of Mustangs are being built to race, then made to work on the street.

I am looking forward to @kz reporting back though. The perches are on my list, as are new springs.
 

TeeLew

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2020
Threads
15
Messages
3,396
Reaction score
2,609
Location
So Cal
First Name
Tim
Vehicle(s)
Honda Odyssey, Toyota Tacoma, 89 GT project, 2020 Magnetic EB HPP w/ 6M
RE Spring rates

I had a 85 GT C Prepared Mustang I ran from 1990 to 2002. During that time spring rates went up inline with tire size increases and tire compound/design improvements. ...

From that point on, suspensions got more sophisticated and spring rates (wheel rates) went higher and higher. My car ended up with 1650lb springs on front and 780lb springs on the rear (all in the stock location) combined with the biggest OE Fox body sway bars. On fresh Hoosier rubber that car was loose and fast.

The point of the long read is that CAMC is an evolution. Right now a talented driver (not me) could take a fairly streetable car with some decent aero and do well with it. CP in the mid 90's was like that too. But a bunch serious efforts in CP put folks on notice. The same thing will happen in CAM and spring rates that seem extreme are just a symptom.

I ran in ESP with my '79 Pace Car in the early/mid 90's (not as long as you or at as high of a level). I can't remember what the rates were, but I was on the Ford Performance springs. In retrospect, I think we ran those cars stiff because the suspension geometry was so bad. To quote Chapman, "Any suspension will work as long as you don't let it." Your numbers are extremely high in a mathematical sense, but they might have been a better compromise than dealing with that mess of a suspension. At those rates, you're seeing the lion's share of suspension movement in the tire sidewall. I don't see how this approach would work with our cars. If I had that car to do over, I'd take a significantly different approach. That was the car that started me down the road of not liking oversteer. It's not that I was scared or whatever. It's just when you're trying to gather the thing up all the time, it's hard to go fast. Drifts look cool, but they're slow.

CAM is beginning to lose its way a bit, if you ask me. It *should* be a class where a sporty daily-driver is competitive. They're consistently moving away from this model, unfortunately.

P.S. A008'S FTW!
 

TeeLew

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 27, 2020
Threads
15
Messages
3,396
Reaction score
2,609
Location
So Cal
First Name
Tim
Vehicle(s)
Honda Odyssey, Toyota Tacoma, 89 GT project, 2020 Magnetic EB HPP w/ 6M
I'm looking forward to what you come up with. Hopefully it answers all my questions as to why Ford went one way, and every other "kit" on the market seems to go the other direction.
Here's my opinion. Street car guys don't tend to have big brake zones and the don't even know corner entry speed is a thing. Because of this, when gassing it on the local freeway on-ramp, the performance manufacturers give them something which is balanced in a very pushy situation. All the 'canned' spring packages seem to be to make the car lower overall with the tail proportionally higher for aesthetic reasons and rates chosen to kill any understeer which might exist in a stock car. Once you do anything on the front, like add camber, you're loose.

I also think that relatively soft front spring is why many people have used the raised front roll center. It provides front end response and effectively increases understeer by increasing front roll stiffness.
 

Sponsored

mavisky

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Threads
12
Messages
2,346
Reaction score
3,235
Location
Cumming, GA
First Name
Kyle
Vehicle(s)
2018 GT350
CAM is beginning to lose its way a bit, if you ask me. It *should* be a class where a sporty daily-driver is competitive. They're consistently moving away from this model, unfortunately.

P.S. A008'S FTW!
Agreed. It seems like it's due to them trying to bring over some of the time attack corvettes in CAM-S and then it rolled downhill from there.
 

NightmareMoon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Threads
62
Messages
7,056
Reaction score
6,315
Location
Austin
Vehicle(s)
2016 Mustang GT PP w/ Voodoo
Vehicle Showcase
1
Agreed. It seems like it's due to them trying to bring over some of the time attack corvettes in CAM-S and then it rolled downhill from there.
Well the fastest CAMC car in my area is a very stock looking ZL1 1LE with MCS coilovers and good wheels/tires. Its about as streetable looking as they get. You still have to drive it tho.
 

mavisky

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Threads
12
Messages
2,346
Reaction score
3,235
Location
Cumming, GA
First Name
Kyle
Vehicle(s)
2018 GT350
Well the fastest CAMC car in my area is a very stock looking ZL1 1LE with MCS coilovers and good wheels/tires. Its about as streetable looking as they get. You still have to drive it tho.
I mean aside from the splitter and spoiler on my car you'd never guess I was the fastest car in my class in the Atlanta region. My main competitor did upgrade to a Nine Lives dual element wing in theoff-season, but any time gained was most likely due to his new tires and not the wing. Certainly not to the point that the PAX would think you it would help.

I was just saying that them allowing those cars is what lead to the rules being thr way they are. I still haven't seen anyone truly build a car from the ground up to dominate CAM-C.
 

kz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Threads
62
Messages
4,578
Reaction score
2,899
Location
West Chester, OH
Vehicle(s)
Mustangs & F150
Agreed. It seems like it's due to them trying to bring over some of the time attack corvettes in CAM-S and then it rolled downhill from there.
So far it has worked out great, ton of these guys showed up (sarcasm of course).

There were several people that strongly advocated for wings and not sure what the reason was but they had (I think) JG from GRM weigh in as well (nothing against him).

I don't think participation has increased much or at all nationally, locally nothing changed, you get all the variety like always.
 

kz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Threads
62
Messages
4,578
Reaction score
2,899
Location
West Chester, OH
Vehicle(s)
Mustangs & F150
Btw - -3.6 degrees camber on Steeda plates without touching towers with a hole saw.

Don't know why others are seeing some really low numbers with them.
Sponsored

 
 








Top