67Mustang

Again, this would be a no go for basically all old cars. Use the early gen Mustang for an example. 195/75-14 as stock... yet you can put 245's and larger under there. Other cars that may have used tiny 13" rims and 155 or 165 tires as well. This is a situation where modern car designs start with much larger rubber to begin with.

Probably be good to be able to run 285/35-18's as they are common and a few other teams that win run those.

Did you paint the heart the proper color first? Have to take everything into account.

That would potentially put older cars at a disadvantage depending on how you limited it. rim size? Diameter? Width? The 95 Cobra can easily stuff it's 285/35's under the stock fenders and probably came with 245's on the rear in the first place (I will be corrected if they were not 245's but it doesn't really matter). Not much of a change. Compare that with some of the 66 Mustangs out in the series that came on either 14" or 15" steel rims running tires between 185/75-14 and 205/65-15. A percentage won't work across the board.

For what it's worth, I agree with your comments however I would argue that the current witch hunt is attempting to do exactly what you state cannot be allowed to happen.

I don't think you are missing anything.

Same crappy box as used from the 60's and used in Fords as well, All my 60's Mustangs use the same box. What sucks about those systems too is the geometry of the arms etc. The power steering add on the factories used is a bit messy to say the least. For the Fords, there were a couple of ratios used in the boxes and the power steering did have a quicker ratio, less turns lock to lock, so that would be desirable. Well at least it would be to me as I have always updated my cars to use the PS ratio boxes and removed the PS hardware. Yes, those old piston assist systems leak more than a 50 year

I’m on my phone so hard to see but I think what you have circled is the rear lower arm mounts for the C4 suspension. I agree any bar between left/right should be 10 if it is added.

I could not find a shot that showed the whole thing, I assume you were referencing the rear view in page 7 or 8, I would like to think a properly caged vette for CC would have rear down tubes like this one. Mind you the stock chassis rails do go back to the bumper area and the tank will be between those and behind the axle. Those 1 inch square tubes seen under the vette in other pictures I took to be the box to house the tank. Stuff back behind the axle isn't gaining any chassis rigidity IMO

Pictures of the rear? I have not seen that yet.

I was surprised they didn't just do like this old Greenwood chassis... http://www.greenwoodcorvettes.com/Race cars/99/swiss4.jpg The welded cross bar would be a no no here of course, but if it were bolted, should be fine. This is the effect they were going for on the current car. But hey, The Riley's know a thing or two about C3 Corvette's anyway...

Assuming that is a direct quote and not intended in jest by the tech inspector, maybe you should have taken that specific comment up with Jay....

Agreed, seems correct....

Excellent comments Troy. Thanks. I agree on the tires. I've heard of other teams using multiple sets of tires over a weekend, but not that many. Good perspective.

It's galled me from day one that every old 911 was valued at 750 points whether it was a 2.0L or a late 3.0L lol. Those early cars would be fast but honestly, the top cars in CC would be every bit as fast. Either way, the cost of old 911's makes it meaningless either way.