Lateral-g Forums - What would a USCA pro-touring class look like??

Lateral-g Forums (https://www.lateral-g.net/forums/index.php)

- Open Discussion (https://www.lateral-g.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)

- - What would a USCA pro-touring class look like?? (https://www.lateral-g.net/forums/showthread.php?t=48086)

80% of us can run all three (GG,USCA, CAM) now.

I have to do a bunch of math, but I think restructuring the points system would level the playing field without even really changing anything. Run the three existing classes at the finale......_maybe_ add a vintage PT class for a total of 4 classes.

So now you have 4 class winners, AWD, GT2K, GT3K, and PT3K but still no Ultimate Street Car. Those four winners have a hard boiled egg eating contest, most eggs wins!:idea:

Kidding about the eggs, but less classes, less rules is still the answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vegas69 (Post 579905)

If you look at the gap between Popp and Hobaugh, it's roughly 25 points. The simplest way I see to get things back to even and fair is more weight on the design portion of the event. After all, a street car should have design appeal vs. a race car. Say a scale of 50 max. A riddler gets close to 50 where a modern corvette would get closer to 25. I'm sure some math could make this pretty fair for all with averages.

I'll be surprised if they want to get serious about sanctioning with a big book of rules for classes.

*Ridler

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSLance (Post 579903)

Mark,

I'm just curious...what is the reason behind the "stock floor pan" rule? Is it to prevent mini tubbing to allow for larger rear tires? If so, why not just regulate the tire size instead? Seems like it would be much easier and clearer for teching said cars at registration.

Just guessing at Mark's intent here, but one effect of maintaining stock floor pan is that it makes it much harder to create a full-on tube frame style race car with a dropped body on top. 90% original floor pan would still allow for lesser but popular mods like mini tubs and weld-through frame connectors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSLance (Post 579903)

Mark,

Having people such as yourself giving input into this new way of classing our cars is a great thing, thanks. I've been involved with promoting the CAM class within the SCCA since before it was even called the CAM class. I agree a common ruleset between these groups would benefit everyone involved. This is the only real problem I see with your proposal is, why cut it off at 1984?

Ron Sutton's choice of using 1989 seems like a better cut off year if there has to be one. I don't know of any makes or models that changed drastically between 84 and 89 that would make any difference in these events. Why leave the late 80s car out?

I also don't see the need to separate out the CAM-T cars into their own class. Prepared equally, it has been shown that the CAM cars run virtually identical times as the CAM-T cars.

I'm just curious...what is the reason behind the "stock floor pan" rule? Is it to prevent mini tubbing to allow for larger rear tires? If so, why not just regulate the tire size instead? Seems like it would be much easier and clearer for teching said cars at registration.

.............

I think this thread is great...having all of this input really lays the cards out on the table and hopefully is taken into consideration by the powers that be when deciding on the future of all of these groups. I agree with Ron Sutton that these are all just each of our own ideas and opinions, none of them are wrong and none of them are right either. Please keep the ideas and opinions flowing...

The only reason I mentioned stock floor pans was to keep cost down. If there is a min. weight that would work.

I like pre-1989.

I don't want to kill myself to build a cool old car and go run against late model vehicles.

I do see a great opportunity to make one set of rules that could work with Goodguys, SCCA and OUSCI. If OUSCI wants one overall winner that is fine. Just make a class for the old cars or give the old cars more style or engineering points.

Mark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stielow (Post 579924)

Mark says it best. He doesn't want to kill himself to build a cool old car, and then be forced to go run against late model vehicles with numerous advantages, out of the box.

This is what will eventually thin the competitors.
This is what will eventually thin the spectators.
Sponsors won't stick around...
This is why classes AND rules are necessary. We have a great thing going here, it simply needs tweaking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Che70velle (Post 579936)

I agree with this mindset and add the street driving pre and post racing segments to prove its intent as a street car. Maybe as someone stated earlier, have a judge go for a parade lap in the car during the weigh-in process and rate the overall quality of the ride, access, NVH, and comfort of the car. If they have to climb over door bars to fit into a kirky race seat then it obviously will not score as high as someone with buckets and 3-point retractable belts. Adjust the S&D points to have more weight. As stated already, there is no reason a full on race car should be within 3 points of a Ridler winner.

I don't disagree with your post above Chris, but I would not want to see an incentive for 3 point belts. The road course speeds are a bit hairy. :cheers:

Keep going fellas. I love the discussion. :bump:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stielow (Post 579924)

That sounds great to me Mark, thanks for the response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontlifttoshift (Post 579909)

Those four winners have a hard boiled egg eating contest, most eggs wins!:idea:

My money is on Luke.......'Hey, Babaluga' 'Cool Hand Luke' ate 50 eggs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrabberGT (Post 579938)

Interesting points.

Being fortunate to ride in Hellfire from the strip out to the track on two different nights in average Vegas traffic what impressed me more than the shear power was how docile, quiet, and comfortable the car was.

I wouldn't think twice about taking on Power Tour or a Good Guys tour. As remarkable as the thermal engineering is considering power output, the engineering/effort that went into daily drivability is very impressive.

Ease of access, seating comfort, roll cage clearance, exterior visibility, gauge data and visibility, convenience lighting, storage space, ride comfort, clutch engagement, power delivery, low interior/exterior decibel levels, no detectable rattles, generous ground clearance, and it tracks dead straight.

I'm disappointed that I didn't take video on of one of the trips that would have shown people how docile a Street Car Hellfire really is.

One interesting qualifier for street car designation would be how would the average neighbor feel about hearing the car start and warm up at 6-7 am? Based on my observation less than 30% of the cars in the OUSCI pits would make for happy neighbors. :D