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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by indydave (Post 580521)

.....

Please tell me Maverick will not be considered a sub compact.

Thanks for taking the time to give us insight Dave.

Much appreciated. :thumbsup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrabberGT (Post 580529)

Please tell me Maverick will not be considered a sub compact.

No. The cars in question are the Vega (and it's variants), Pinto (and it's variants), Mustang II, Monza (and it's variants) and potentially the Gremlin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by preston (Post 580500)

I think what made and makes Optima special is that they pick beautiful and interesting cars. Its starting to morph more towards the "ultimate street car" side of things but what originally made it so unique and interesting ? It was because they were picking normal show cars and extreme builds and it gave us all a chance to see how they would really perform. A few late models as a benchmark was fine, but it seems like we are all deep into discussing it as a truly competitive race event now. I feel like there are a hundred places to go and reace for real, maybe they don't all accomodate old iron as well as you would like but if I was Optima I would stick more to the invitiational format, and look for interesting show cars, old cars, and unique builds with the idea that we are just throwing them together to see how they perform, less than "we are having a psuedo-race to sort of crown a time trail type champion of street legal cars".

That's my take on it - less about racing and more about seeing cool cars perform, because there are dozens of other time trial and race venues, Optima was unique because of the types of cars they invite.

Well done Preston.

Quote:

Originally Posted by indydave (Post 580521)

I've have ben given the suggested ruleset for CAM 2015 and here's the highlights:

-CAM will become a category with 3 classes with the classes similar to the rules used for the CAM Invitational and Supplemental CAM classes at the Solo Nationals. Those classes as proposed are:
CAM/T- open to older American made front engine, rear wheel drive cars originally built with minimum of four seats with cutoffs being not being an arbitrary model year but rather by model generations.
CAM/C- open to late model American made front engine, rear wheel drive cars originally built with a minimum of four seats.
CAM/S- open to American made front engine, rear wheel drive cars originally built with 2 seats as well as kit cars and vintage hot rods.

-an exclusions list that outlaw C-5 and newer Corvettes, Vipers, and boutique manufacturer super cars as well as subcompact cars from the seventies such as the Vega, Pinto, et-al.

-the rest of the rules proposed would carry over from 2014. There are some things that are still very fluid such as proposed minimum weights and what subcompact cars are to be included on the exclusions list.

-that CAM remain a Regional only class for the foreseeable future. National status for the class for the class was by and large not a concern for most competitors when asked.

-also proposed are a minimum of 2 special events just for CAM class car in addition to the CAM Invitational. One event would be out west, the other in the Midwest. These events would be qualifiers to earn invitations for the CAM Invitational. These events would be either be run as a Pro Solo or a Match Tour pending site locations.

-What didn't make the cut was limiting tire section width and chassis limits. At the Regional level, this simply has not been an issue and surveying class competitors at the Region level it just wasn't a concern for the majority. The chances of a Josh Leisenger showing up with the Crusher II Corvette at a local SCCA Solo are remote at best. At the "special" events proposed, both formats use a "dial" to help even the competition between the classes. Those dials are based on the fast qualifier's time for each class and is someone goes faster than the dial during competition the faster time becomes that individual competitor's personal dial.

Well... That is disappointing.

On a local Regional level I'm fine with it, but not having a legitimate National Class that would split the field up in a competitive nature is a mistake.

Any 3000 pound car made before 1989 is not going to be fast without modifications, many modifications. Any 3000 pound car made before 1989 can be made to be just as fast as any other 3000 pound car with unlimited modifications. Why bother splitting them up by arbitrary model year?

Leave it to the SCCA... **rolleyes**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chetly (Post 580499)

What you may or may not realize is the amount of modifications to the cars your kicking out of CAM may put them in classes that require r-comp tires, not street tires. Maybe those people don't want to run race rubber, or can't run nationals on certain days.
I don't see where your classes are anymore fair than the current classes. The time difference between 1st and worse is still in the 9-10 second range. You in fact drop one position. Until SCCA starts seeing a heavier participation of the CAM classes then they will more than likely stand with the current.

Those late model cars came to CAM because it was easy picking considering the classes they were running in before. I had to race my car in Street Modified the first year I ran, against Evos on Slicks. See the difference?

Quote:

Originally Posted by chetly (Post 580499)

I don't see where your classes are anymore fair than the current classes. The time difference between 1st and worse is still in the 9-10 second range. You in fact drop one position.

CAM
Stephen Yeoh 1969 Camaro 64.181
Robby Unser 1964 Nova 64.607 <------------- Same Car
Alan Schoonmaker 1969 Camaro 64.936
Lance Hamilton 1985 Monte Carlo 64.958
Jason Smith 1964 Nova 67.927 <------------ Same Car
Valerie Pichette 1988 Pontiac GTA 68.811

CAM Extreme
Mike Dusold 1967 Camaro 62.764
Mike Trenkle 1985 Mustang 64.042 <----- Same Car
Kelley Jaeger 1985 Mustang 67.802 <----- Same Car

Alan and Stephen drove the same 1969 Camaro as well. As said above, you can't class out the driver. The good drivers are going to be near the top no matter what they are driving.

The numbers and results from the Pro-Solo were much more glaring, with more of each type of car represented. I wish I could find those dial in times. The actual race of the Pro-Solo was half wet have dry so those results were inconsistent.

I found the dial in times of the Pro-Solo. I don't think the 78.321 for Dusold is correct because I know the CAM-T dial in was a few tenths slower than the CAM-C dial in.

CAM/S drivers were in order they qualified:
1) Josh Leisinger 1964 Corvette 76.327
2) Scott Frazier 1965 Ford Cobra 76.508
3) Bruce Cambern 1965 Ford Cobra 79.211

CAM/T
1) Mike Dusold 1968 Camaro 78.321
2) Robbie Unser 1964 Nova 79.471
3) Alan Schoonmaker 1969 Z/28 Camaro 79.762
4) Andrew Chenoweth 1970 Challenger 81.653
5) Jared Leisinger 1970 Chev C10 82.095
6) Jinx Jordan 1969 Camaro Z/28 82.780
7) Kurt Chenoweth 1970 Challenger R/T 84.319
8) Don Knop 1966 Shelby Mustang 350GTH 84.778
9) Karen Leisinger 1970 Camaro 87.859
10) Justin Dermody 1978 Trans Am 88.430
11) Craig Worm 1969 Camaro RS 94.354
12) Shawn McNeil 1971 Skylark 101.216

CAM/C
1) Dave Feighner 1995 Mustang Cobra R 78.321
2) Marcus Merideth 2007 2007 Mustang Shelby 79.182
3) Jennifer Merideth 2007 Mustang Shelby 79.455
4) Dave Dusterberg 2005 Mustang GT 81.033
5) Jeremiah Stotler 2010 Camaro 81.726
6) Lorien Feighner 2012 Mustang GT 81.998
7) Keith Lamming 2011 Camaro SS 82.021
8) John Fehring 2000 Trans Am 82.177
9) Lance Hamilton Monte Carlo SS 83.386

How they would have been split up under my proposal. Pay more attention to the times than the finishing order. The late model cars dominated both the CAM and CAM Extreme except in just a few cases of the very best drivers in the other cars.

CAM
2) Robbie Unser 1964 Nova 79.471
3) Alan Schoonmaker 1969 Z/28 Camaro 79.762
4) Andrew Chenoweth 1970 Challenger 81.653
6) Jinx Jordan 1969 Camaro Z/28 82.780
9) Lance Hamilton 1985 Monte Carlo SS 83.386
7) Kurt Chenoweth 1970 Challenger R/T 84.319
8) Don Knop 1966 Shelby Mustang 350GTH 84.778
10) Justin Dermody 1978 Trans Am 88.430
11) Craig Worm 1969 Camaro RS 94.354
12) Shawn McNeil 1971 Skylark 101.216

CAM Extreme
1) Mike Dusold 1968 Camaro 78.321
5) Jared Leisinger 1970 Chev C10 82.095
9) Karen Leisinger 1970 Camaro 87.859

Other SCCA Class
1) Dave Feighner 1995 Mustang Cobra R 78.321
2) Marcus Merideth 2007 2007 Mustang Shelby 79.182
3) Jennifer Merideth 2007 Mustang Shelby 79.455
4) Dave Dusterberg 2005 Mustang GT 81.033
5) Jeremiah Stotler 2010 Camaro 81.726
6) Lorien Feighner 2012 Mustang GT 81.998
7) Keith Lamming 2011 Camaro SS 82.021
8) John Fehring 2000 Trans Am 82.177

Best car and best driver will win in any class or set of rules a governing body attempts to design. We can all try to create a "fair" set of rules, but just like life, nothing is "fair". Run what ya brung. Keep it simple. I personally like the proposed rules from Dave for those reasons. Amy and I run with Mike Dusold often. We get shellacked but do we care. No. We have a blast. He is an awesome guy and teacher. Our times improve as his times improve.

If you don't like it don't run it. I personally do not run SCCA events. Not because of rules but because of the 5-7 minutes of track time I get for the 12 hr commitment. I'll go to USCA events, pay the registration fee, and get 10,000x's the amount of track time and instruction ALL DAY long. The classes need some tweaking for safety reasons as others have pointed out but other than that, let builders and drivers innovate, design and bring whatever they want. I really don't care about rules as long as they do not compromise safety.

Another concept is, If you don't like it, design your own. A group of us have worked with our local auto cross coordinators (Equipe Rapide) to set up private auto cross and speed stop events. We get to do 20+ runs and with the addition of speed/stop it will be closer to 40+. We pay for course workers so participants DO NOT work the course. Ride along with other participants. We provide lunch and we have had some generous sponsors such as Speedtek, Firewheel Classics, West Bend Dyno, H&H Racing Engines and others give us a little money or discounts to help pay for the track rental and have some giveaways after the dust settles.

In 2015 we are looking to do 4 events. All run what ya brung. Maybe adding a drag strip element to it since most of the participants are not comfortable on a road course. We have 3 classes similar to Good-Guy's. Pro, Experienced, Novice. The primary difference is we recognize more than just the fastest participants. We take a podium approach and then have a few fun awards. Fastest noob. Slowest award. Cone killer award. Most entertaining wipeout. The list goes on but you get the drift. We want to highlight camaraderie. We recognize achievements for great times and performance, but we also know we have to keep it friendly for everyone. We do our best to recognize the differing levels of ability. Something missing from the USCA IMO.

I don't envy Jimi at all. He and the USCA will never make everyone happy. The greatest issue with PT cars is they don't show up. A lot of energy is put into designing a PT rule set but where are all the cars?

My .02!

I think the new CAM rules sound great. I just hope there is no minimum weight for CAM/S. I am in the parts gathering phase for my '28 Ford hot rod and don't want to add 1000# of lead.