In that example, the 5th gen is a stipped interior race car and the 2nd Gen is a full interior car race car. The 5th Gen may be a touch faster than that 2nd Gen, but it's not night and day faster like if it was paired against an older muscle car on 275s.

A driver change in either of those two Camaros will make more a difference in times ran than mods to an older car on small tires ever will.

Let me put it this way, how many of the older muscle car/PT cars that you are afraid will be run off if they can't compete...run a front tire larger than 275?

Or... Put both of those cars on 275s...and see then how they run against one another or the rest of the PT cars out there.

Two classes, a real CAM1 and CAM2. One is stock style suspension with bolt ons and what not, OEM "style". The other being more of an unlimited with altered suspension points, torque arms, non factory 4 links, mini tubs...yada,yada.

The way I read it is CAM is Classic American Muscle, to me that's mainly 60-70's muscle cars. Let's put the classic and muscle back in the class. Put a cap on the year, say mid 70's....Detroit didn't produce any muscle after than anyhow.

Define what a rear seat is. My Mustang won't have a rear seat. I don't think Marks car has a rear seat, so now they are 2 seaters.

Define late model. When is an old car not an old car anymore? It is entirely feasible to stretch a 69 Camaro over a C7 Z06, where does that run then? or you could just swap in the ABS and carbon brakes.......


Me too, there should be a series for that.:poke:

The USC in OUSCI stands for Ultimate Street Car as it always has, and the O stands for Optima, not Old. The design points used to carry the older cars alot more than they used too, but even back then Danny still won in a late Corvette. Remember when average times and outstanding paint/interior could put you near the top of the overall standings. Where would Penny have finished this past weekend?

Don't get me wrong, late models are awesome parts cars and much more financially feasible, the easy button. Be honest, 40K gets you a stock, solid 69 Camaro shell and a stack of DSE parts or a C5 Z06 with coilovers, bigger wheels and tires and aero......not hard to figure out which car is faster per dollar.

So maybe the answer is not another class, but a little more weight for the custom things. Maybe more than few points should separate the guys who bolts (or pays to bolt) stuff on a latemodel vs. the guy who bleeds (or pays someone to bleed) on his car to bring the technology 30 or 40 years into the present. Pro Touring guy has to do a lot to bring his car up to par with just a stock late model, that should count for something, right?

More classes is not the answer, it never is. A slight restructure could fix 90% of the issue here. Previous ramblings aside, if you are going to run 3 classes all year, AWD, GT2, and GT3, then it really does make sense to do the same for the finale.

Actual results from Gateway 2014 between those two cars.

Speed Stop
2nd Kyle Tucker 77 0:13.231
6th Ryan Mathews78 0:13.369

AutoX
2nd Kyle Tucker 77 0:38.051
5th Ryan Mathews78 0:38.669

Hot Laps
3rd Ryan Mathews78 1:9.658
5th Kyle Tucker 77 1:12.502

Design
6th Kyle Tucker 77 22
25th Ryan Mathews78 17.067


Total
2nd Kyle Tucker 77 107
5th Ryan Mathews78 93.067


Looks to me like the PT car won that battle...

Now I'll add in the results from my 275 shod car to the mix.


Speed Stop
2nd Kyle Tucker 77 0:13.231
6th Ryan Mathews78 0:13.369
14th Lance 57 0:13.756


AutoX
2nd Kyle Tucker 77 0:38.051
5th Ryan Mathews78 0:38.669
17th Lance 57 0:40.354


Hot Laps
3rd Ryan Mathews78 1:9.658
5th Kyle Tucker 77 1:12.502
18th Lance 57 1:19.095

Design
6th Kyle Tucker 77 22
20th Lance 57 19.767
25th Ryan Mathews78 17.067


Total
2nd Kyle Tucker 77 107
5th Ryan Mathews78 93.067
17th Lance 57 68.497



Also...
I was under the impression that there was a GT2, GT3, and AWD winner at OUSCI...is that not true?

This is going to be tricky. Making a simple rule like:

Must have a VIN and model year prior to 1980

is a starting point. Only thing about that is it still leaves the door open for people to build full-on tube frame composite-bodied race cars with lights. You may or may not care that the bar to be competitive continually demands more money and more specialization. Even a car like Hobaugh's 73 Camaro, beautiful as it is, is a stretch by most people's definition of "street car". So where do you draw the line, if anywhere?

BTW, anyone who regularly runs their PT car in the advanced classes of HPDE events is under no illusion that the driver can make up the difference against a stripped, fully modded 2900 lb C5 or C6 Vette. Physics is physics.

Here's my point then I'll let it be...

None of these PT cars in question were fast from the factory, they all need work to be fast, some more than others but they all need work. They can all be made to be fast...fast enough that driver skill is going to put one above the other taking the car out of the equation for the most part.

The difference between being fast and very fast is about 30% car and 70% driver. Classes can't do anything about the driver, so working with just that 30% factor, the biggest part of that is going to be tire...how much of it is gripping the track. That's where the rubber meets the road. If you don't want to end up with 287 different classes for PT cars (and who does) the main way to separate them should be by tire size. ANY of the makes, models and years being discussed can be made to be just as fast as the rest of them, there is no need to try to separate them out by make, model, or year (other than putting the factory two seaters in their own class).

I don't want to exclude the "Outlaw" cars with super wide rubber and stripped interiors, I just don't think they should be running with those of us with stock interiors and rubber that fits under stock fenders.

I really don't think separating protouring cars based on their tire sizes is the right thing to do. Obviously it helps to have more tire, so basically if A guy wants more tire, then it's time to do some mini-tubing and flaring. If you're going to separate the PT cars from the rest of the cars you really can't get too crazy in splitting them up into even more classes, then everything really becomes a mess...

What Jody is trying to get at are the big differences between the vettes, Porsches and Ricers in comparison to the heavy american iron. Traction control, ABS, aero, stability control etc. are all too much for most talented drivers to overcome because of the fact that those cars that finish well not only have all of those aids, but they also are generally lighter and have shorter wheelbases. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that on tight autocrosses and brake stop courses, a little lightweight car is going to have an advantage.

The only time the larger cars have an even playing field would be the road course. Hence why the 5th generation Camaro's and some Pro Touring cars generally do well on the big track with a good driver and good equipment.

How about instead of GT2K, GT3K and AWD you have...

PT, Pro Touring '79 or '89??? and older. Domestics.

AWD, same as before.

GT all other entrants.

By the way, this thread will probably not accomplish much. There are way too many alpha males and type A personalities with bright ideas and big egos to ever come to an agreement on much of anything, but maybe it will spark some type of debate within the Optima group. :stirthepot:

The white monster 5th gen was running on 285s last time I looked, that may have changed.

Lance, you make no mention of weight are you just planning on staying with the current under/over 3,000 pounds and then adding under/over 275 mm tires?