That's an interesting take on it Ron...I'm still digesting it.

Can you expand more on your idea * Double the points available for “street car” functional features?

Say a basically race car on street tires shows up...aluminum skinned interior, race seats, cage, no creature comforts, runs on race fuel, nearly open headers, nobody in their right mind would want to drive it any further up the street than they had to. In your scenario would the "street car functional features" double points be enough to make up for a considerable speed advantage on the track and courses to a fully outfitted real Pro-Touring street car that any of us would get into and drive across the State?

I'm also wondering how a class structure like this would transfer over to the SCCA, ASCA or Good Guys events which don't include the design and engineering portion in their events? Those sanctioning bodies would probably still need to split the Early American Iron class up into a couple or more classes (maybe by tire size?). At the same time at least in the SCCA's case they don't need the late model class as they already have plenty of those where those cars can already be competitive in.


Would a steel body two seat AMX fit in the Late Model Class? Wasn't there a two seat early Mustang as well? Not sure if those would be considered sports cars or not? For the most part I'm good with the Late Model class. It's a way to separate out the 2 seat cars with the sizeable weight distribution and overall weight advantage from the full bodied cars and also gives the AWD and late model guys a comparable field to compete in.

Hi Lance,

I wish you could have made it to SEMA & Optima this year. Both were a blast.

The 2-seat AMX & Mustangs didn't have any significant advantage. Most guys that were there removed their back seat for a roll bar/cage anyway. The 98" short wheelbase is a moderate advantage on the AMX, but a Vega & Pinto are shorter at 97". That is not an advantage on the road course.

The real advantage of the older Corvettes is the high engine set back for better weight distribution. The big advantage of the Shelby Cobras is the super light weight. Combine these with the short wheelbase & the advantage tilts so far in their favor the American Iron cars are on an unfair playing field. So IMHO let all years of Corvettes, Cobras, Vipers, etc compete with the Late Model group.

But it doesn't matter what you & I agree on. LOL !

:lol: :headspin: :mock: :rofl: :poke:

Ron Sutton doesn't always drink beer... but when he does... it's not Dos Equis.

Insightful posts, Ron.

Just some food for thought since everyone is creating a "racing event" mentality here....


THIS IS A SHOW....


You RACE to get into the "SHOW"....


Many cars are by INVITE (IT is an INVITATIONAL after all...) and may or may not ever do this type of event again. EVER. We hope that they go home and build a badass car and beat on it because they are hooked... but that's beside the point.


My only reason for my super simple "rules" --- i.e., the 3 classes.... was not about "fairness" or about "winning"... it was about RECOGNITION and memories for the participants. A way of at least being recognized for being the "Stielow" or the "Hobaugh" of the event in your "class"... because you're not going to "win" against the newer AWD and late models given similar driver quality. Recognize that the guy with the show car (for christ sake - a guy with a RIDLER car was out there stomping on it!) is there for another glory day - was invited to come out... and a little podium time for him/her is good enough.
The overall winner is to the super competitive guys that fight for every .01 on their times - drive like pros - and win... regardless of what that might look like.

In the end -- it's a show.... not a sanctioned spec build race with tons of rules.

Who here remembers the Bentley the guy brought out and beat it like a Chump car? THAT WAS FUN TO WATCH. PERIOD. I don't care that he had no chance I watched that car like it was chariot sent from heaven. Ditto the ultra rare real Cobra! (okay he spanked everyone).... the best part of that was that he was there and using it for what it was built for.

This year Danny Popp still beat the field in an older (not that old but not a C7 either!) Corvette. He beat the AWD Porsches and EVO's.... and the 1000hp Pro-Touring cars.... and the new Camaros... he beat them all. My point is - it can be done...

I just don't care to go out there and watch RACE CARS.... but I still like 'em all!! LOL

When I went to the Hotchkis Autocross at Fontana last month it was the first race other than local SCCA events I've participated in. I was VERY surprised to see that about half,maybe more (?) of the cars there were late model. At first I thought cool, I'll see how my old car compares to late stuff. After watching a bunch run and then getting my turn I was a bit dissapointed at just how much faster they were. "Oh well, I guess I'll take keeping up with new Camaros off my list." I stopped watching them and paid attention to the old cars after that point. Late model cars are, although cool, boring. How easy is it to buy a late model, put sticky tires and maybe a set of springs (?) and go dominate? My car is completely transformed from where it was stock using bolt on parts and some ingenuity but it's hopeless to think I could ever compete with those guys. When I race SCCA or if there weren't classes, like Ron said, after a while I go back to driving my street/strip Nova with 4.56 gears, a 12:1 small block and no interior on the street because at least I can have a chance at crossing the finish line first again.

There has to be a division between years IMO.

Too many and/or specific rules creates muddy water and an anal retentive inspector can ruin someone's day. I'm building custom door panels for my car because I'm a designer and stock appearing means no creativity in your build to me. My car has notched frame rails and minitubs. But I did that so I can run a wider wheel and 275s without rubbing. So where would I fit in with either of these mods- likely in a class that I couldn't keep up with yet my car really isn'rt any different than the lower class I should be in.

With the chassis bracing and roll cage and stripping anything I don't need the car weighs 3550 without me in it. I'm a light weight so it's 3700 with me. 3850+ with a ride along. How do I compete against a 3000 Camaro when we both have 275 tires and that's the rules? I could gut the doors, dump the interior, install lexan, etc. to lighten it up to be fair, but then it's deemed a race car. More power may be the answer, but that creates a whole new world of controlling tire spin on the autocross. It's all like a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario.

I took out the a/c and heater, along with anything else I don't need to drive the car yet still appear to be a street car. I roast in 118* weather in the summer and I'm a little chilly in the 45 degree winter weather on the way back and forth to work everyday, but I've gotten used to it. Does that really make my car not a street car? All my exterior lights work and I do have a simple stereo if that means anything. I have a fire extinguisher mounted on the trans tunnel too, so technically my car is more safe than a factory car. :)

In Fontana, the majority of the cars were between 50 and 47 seconds, separated often by a 10th or even 100th of a second. If I were to put on an event, I'd run classes by ability, which could mean any combination of the car and driver. If you get 3 trial runs and run a 31 second time, then you fit in the 31-30 sec class. If you run 29.5 during the event, you get bumped into the 29-28 sec class. And so forth. Sandbagging to win a class that you're realistically overqualified for would be a little harder than in drag racing, if you look at the times of the winners at Fontana there were several seconds between their different runs. A simple taking of the turn wrong or a little unexpected tire spin somewhere would throw calculated sandbagging out the window. If there was a class where I had a 2 second range to win, then pushing my car harder towards it's limits and becoming a better driver would be the only factors in whether I could really be competitive or not. It would have absolutely nothing to do with what tire size, vehicle weight, appearance, parts, paint color, what the driver had for dinner last night, etc. It's a simple competition of which car is fastest within a small bracket. It also makes for anyone and any car at any level realistically able to be competitive within their class. So, that full race prepped 69 Camaro could be competitive against that Lotus or AWD GTr. And a home garage built budget G body station wagon could be competitive against a home built budget 69 Camaro. And Mom, who came to watch, could run her minivan against that old fellow (who also originally cam just to watch) in his rental car 6 cyl Mustang. See where this is headed? Everyone has a realistic chance, more people come out to race, more people like to watch a variety of cars and see some heated competition, more amateurs and newbies get involved at their skill level, and more vendors get to rub shoulders with enthusiasts of all ends of the spectrum. Hmmm, sounds a lot like a very competitive and successful classification used in drag racing, that the test of time shows works.

Beyond what everyone said, I think there should be a station wagon class. That would be by far the most fun to watch. I say in that class you can strap in as many people as you can fit, you're allowed one pet hanging half out the window, and you have to have a bag of groceries not fall over in the cargo area during your sojourn around the course. Now that would be interesting and a lot of fun for the crowds. I'd be all over that one, lol!

I am totally with Greg and Ron on this... keeping it simple will keep the most engagement for participants and spectators alike. Everyone competes together (no run groups based on category). Just give each category a certain color decal or something.

Example:

Pro Open----------(the Danny Popp's - resumes req'd)
Pro Vintage-------(the Mark Stielow's - resumes req'd)
Amateur Open----(Your buddy with the M3)
Amateur Vintage--(Most of us on this site)

Exhibition/Show--(SEMA builds, race cars, etc)

These guys might have the 'right' attitude:

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-v...-vRnmz8v-L.jpg

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-q...-q4hfHL7-L.jpg

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-9...-9h9n35Z-L.jpg

:D

This is, not surprisingly, very sensible. I like the idea that you can have a class that doesn't require Stielow/Hobaugh levels of time/money investment to be competitive. And I also like that there is a class to push the limits on the traditional Pro-Touring definition. And the idea of SCCA/USCA crossover.

I still wonder about some kind of real streetability criteria in the final judging. Of course, it will be inevitably subjective, but so is the design section today. The enjoyment of driving a car regularly on the street encompasses a lot of factors - basic legal compliance, seat comfort, NHV, climate control, audio system, interior aesthetics, general responsiveness and predicability in control inputs, to name some of the most obvious. And there is also the subjective Cool Factor - does the car engage the car guys and the general public? What I see is that these criteria are currently of quite limited importance relative to track performance in the USCA world - despite the fact that "Street Car" is the middle name of the association.

Not at all to be negative of Optima and USCA - just the passion on this thread alone proves how important and energizing you folks are! Please keep doing this, and take all this input from us with the appropriate underlying tone of appreciation, and the appropriate grain of salt :)

I built my car the way I wanted it with the intent to improve braking and handling and not to any pre-existing rulebook. So I'm really excited by the SCCA's new CAM class. I can easily meet the CAM rules but still have a highly modified suspension that would otherwise put me in a modified class competing against full blown race cars. Given SCCA's tendency to regulate class rules down to almost micro details, the CAM class is a breath of fresh air.

Interesting 10 page read gentlemen, but bottom line is what you are trying to do in a round about way is answer the answerable question.

What is Pro-touring.

what makes one car more or less eligible than another car. The only difference in the question asked is creating a set of hard and fast rules to categorise cars into groups for results comparisons on the track.

An enviable goal, but one that will require many a late night over beer conversation to "agree to disagree".

I think the points structure for the Style & Design portion needs a lot of work. For there to be as many stripped down race cars as it sounds like there were, the points for this category are way too close.

I hate to single anyone out but... I'lll pick on Ryan Mathews because his is the only one on the list I know for sure. (unless he did something different to the Monster Camaro) How is it within 3 points of a Ridler winner or even within a single point of any car there with a stock interior. His camaro is a stripped down race car. Although incredible well engineered, its style and design in my opinion are far less that what a stock interior represents in any of the others. The majority of the cars fell within the 17-18 point range for this segment and yet there is a HUGE disparity in street car vs race car amenities.

The SCCA has started a CAM class.

I feel with a few tweeks the SCCA CAM class, Goodguys and USCA could use the same rules.

If the 3 groups could work togther we could have 3 places to run our cars under the same rules.

Classic American Muscle (CAM)

The purpose of CAM is to attract automobile enthusiasts to SCCA® who are currently interested in and/or participating in the Goodguys® Autocross events or other similar events for “classic” vehicles (e.g., Street Machine, Muscle Car, Hot Rod, Truck, Street Car, Late Model, etc.) built in North America by manufacturers based in the US (e.g., “The Big Three” – GM, Ford, and Chrysler).

Eligible Vehicles

• Vehicle must be considered a “street legal” (lights, wipers, etc.), US-domestic automobile of front-engine/RWD configuration or a “pick-up” truck. Must be licensed and insured.

• Vehicle must pass the mandatory safety inspection (tech) and be in compliance with Section 3, Vehicles, of the 2014 SCCA® National Solo® Rules.

• Vehicles must be 1984 or older.

• All body panels must be present in the original standard locations and may be modified or replaced. Exception: High-Boys (1954 and earlier), Roadsters (1954 and earlier), and Trucks (1940 and earlier) are not required to have fenders or hood sides.

• All glass must be present. Side glass components may be replaced by Lexan®.

• Interior must be finished and have minimum seating for two adults.

• The fuel tank/cell must be separated from the driver/passenger compartment by a metal panel/bulkhead. The fuel tank/cell shall not vent into the driver/passenger compartment.

Wheels and Tires

• Any metallic wheels are allowed. Non-metallic wheels must be certified from an appropriate, recognized standards organization (e.g., FIA, SFI, SAE, TUV, etc.).

• Only DOT-approved tires with a UTQG Treadwear Grade of 200 or more are permitted.

Body Electrical System

• Electrical components and wiring are unrestricted.

Brake System

• Brake system and components are unrestricted.

Suspension and Steering

• Suspension and steering components are unrestricted. Method of

attachment is unrestricted.

Engine and Drive Train

• Engine, drive train, and associated components (internal and external)

are unrestricted.

CAM –T (Traditional):

Gen 1-3 Mustang,
Gen 1 & 2 Camaro/Firebird,
Gen 1-3 Barracuda/Challenger, plus similar generation coupes/sedans going back to 1959

CAM –S (Sports): C1-3 Corvettes, Cobras, 2 seater AMX’s, Hot Rods

I would add the cars must maintain 90% of stock floor pans and maybe a minimum weight of 3000 - 3300lbs. No kit cars.
The minimum weight would keep the cars street cars.

I know this will not make everyone happy, but it would hit 80 percent of the cars.

Mark

I'm just a nobody, so my opinion really doesn't matter to the guys making the decisions within these organizations, but I really hope that a 90% stock floor pan rule is not put into effect. Otherwise I spent the last few years and a huge amount of my small salary building a car that won't be allowed to compete in any of the events.

I guess I don't see how having a custom floor in your car is enough of an advantage to disallow it. Especially if you have a minimum weight rule in effect.

Aluminum or some other light material on the floor would give you an advantage as far as total weight is concerned, but if you have a minimum weight rule then all of that goes out the window because if a car was under the minimum you would end up having to add lead ballast to the car.

My car has a custom floor that's made out of steel and I really didn't replace it because I thought it would be advantageous in any aspect, it was really more of a decision to make a safer structure to weld a rollcage to and properly attach the body to the chassis and it ended up around 20% stock floor pan.

Just my opinion I guess. I never thought I would ever be competitive in any of these events, but I definitely hoped to attend them and gain experience.

At the end of the day what is it that we want to achieve by actually using the cars we build?? We want to see if all the hard work and $$ and late nights actually pan out with a build that can perform (within all the limits of budget and talent and intent).

What have the good folks that run these events done for us? They've created a venue (several venues) in which there ARE NO RULES except some pretty basic ones - mostly safety... that are pretty "open" so that we can build "X" car and have a place to run it.

The beauty of track days is that a guy can go run and have fun with his buddies... There are plenty of these in every section of the country every weekend.

If a guy wants to be "competitive" within some class structure -- he can build a car to compete in whatever association he chooses. SCCA - NASA, or some other organization.

Isn't the beauty or the USCA/OUSCI events the fact that it's probably the only place that we can see so much diversity?

When I go to these events I know in advance that there's very few driver/car combos that can "win".... Hobaugh / Finch / Tucker / Mathews / Stielow / Maier / Pozzi / Popp.... They have the cars and the talent. While it's fun to watch these "pillars" duke it out... I love to see the other guys just out there pounding on their stuff - struggling - breaking - mending - meeting new friends and running on tracks they'd never ever get to drive on.

Why would we want to change that just to be able to declare someone the "winner". Aren't all of the participants winning in their own way?

You so right Grasshopper

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...

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.

Me too Ron... Me too...


Looking at the final results from last weekend, it appears like positions 40 or so through 100 were basically dictated by the judging in the Design and Engineering portion of the event. That is disappointing to many I'm certain.

I know a lot of those drivers and I'm certain had I been there I would have been one in that section as well. I know all of them are chomping at the bit to see the actual spreadsheet with the details of their results so they can see "who did I beat in the autocross", and "where did I end up in the Speed Stop or Hot Lap" sections overall. I know most of these drivers did not have a chance at winning overall but I also know they are damn interested in how they did stack up to those around them in the actual events that were measured by a stop watch (even if it wasn't for the true overall win).

This is why I asked about your double points for street car functional features idea. Not specifically for each point calculation, but how this portion of the event can or should be used when determining the final outcome. I know the reason why this portion is used for one fifth of the points overall, but IMHO if this portion alone is going to determine spots 40-100...it needs to be a bit less subjective and a bit more detailed and laid out in advance.



Again, I would have loved to been there regardless and I'm making every effort I can to be there next year, regardless... I think it is still the best thing going for this segment of the automotive world...I'm just hoping with input from all of us we can make it even better for everyone.

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.

*Ridler

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.

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

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.

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:

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

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

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

You like to hear that badass rumble just as much as the next guy does, don't give me that crap about yuppie neighbors being pissed off!
:bump: :twak:

They may be "Street Cars" but that doesn't mean they have to have the exhaust note of a Prius. :bigun2: :beavis:

You got that right... :D

"If it's too loud, you're too old!"

:bigun2:

On an event or series basis I will politely disagree with this.

I believe what you were saying is:

This is what will eventually thin the Pro-Touring focused competitors.
This is what will eventually thin the Pro-Touring focused spectators.
Pro-Touring focused Sponsors won't stick around...

From what I saw last weekend "we" are a small part of this overall concept yet "we" think we have some right of ownership to the idea. The enthusiasm and support that some of the :secret: import :secret: teams had was simply amazing and frankly put us to shame. And again, from what I saw, the import folks (new and old, competitive and not) were every bit as (if not more) excited and proud to be there as anyone. And, to be honest, they were younger than most of us. Appreciate them or not "they" are the next generation.

Jody's question here was what would a PT class look like and I think that there are several great answers to that. BUT there seems to be an assumption that OUSCI (or SSCA or GG) needs to change to suit us or they are going to fail. Not the case. The only potential loser in any of these cases is ourselves. We need to show THEM that we can be a part of their events and we can make them more successful. Personally I think that they know that - the reception that Smitty, Poorvette, and I received when we pulled off the track showed me that we put on a show for the fans - but I wouldn't expect them to cater to us exclusively.

As I said to one member last week at SEMA - why should the USCA (or OUSCI) define "us"? It's just one of many opportunities that we have to enjoy our cars but it's existence doesn't somehow dictate what we can or can not do.

Just my 2 bits

:underchair:

Just reading James last post.
What do you suspect the posts look like on the C5,6,7 forums and the import forums.

Quote" God all we need to do is get rid of those slow old cars and have a really cool event of our own" .............. lol

:waveflag:

This weekend sure. However since 2008 the field was mostly pro-touring cars. That's why we kind of all feel we should still be a part of it.

Couldn't agree more. The fact is that there are a handful of names from this segment that are competitive that are recurring. It needs fresh blood to attract new attention to the series if it's to make it.

Optima is doing it for one reason, exposure.

I can see vendors that have sponsored the event from the beginning having a influence on changes required to make this more fair for the future especially the vendors that sell parts for Pro-Touring cars.. but as I was told by one of the highly respected board members here.. We have a choice! to participate or not to participate..

The rules will also have some impact on participation.. The biggest rumor going on @ SEMA this year for OUSCI was aero being banned for 2015 because this one guy wrote a letter to USCA complaining that was un-fair(BTW the guy was in the top 10).. So if writing a letter to USCA can change a rule.. Then if most of the board members here wrote a letter to USCA to have a class for Pro-Touring cars then we might have a chance of it being implemented.. Just saying!

Class 1 champion pre- 89
Class2 champion 89 to present
Class3 champion sports car
Just examples..

Overall grand champion from the field of 100 cars!

At least this gives more participates a chance to win something.. USCA & OUSCI has to acknowledge that @ least 50 to 60% of the field is there to try to win.. anybody that participated add up there receipts yet on what it cost to spend a week in Vegas plus car prep?

The bottom line it was a honor to be invited to the event! I had a blast & have some great memories.. will I try next to attend the events to win my way thru points.. don't know yet.. right now looking on how to build an all wheel drive C3 Corvette!

.


Agreed, I would have liked to seen however many cars were there giving points. I.E. Danny got 1st on the hot lap so he gets 106, or whatever the car count is. Last place finisher gets one. You'd at least be able to tell who you faster/slower than...

I like that idea. My second thought is that it would make it impossible to have a season ling points standing if there are 60 people at one event and 40 at the next.

This happens to every race series once it gains attention and actually means something to win. A race car and driver are simply tools. He who brings the best tool for the job wins. Rules define the best tool. Simple as that. Why build a 6-figure pro-touring car and then get schooled by a gutted C5? Just sayin'.