We went out to Thunderhill in my Nova with Jay driving me in the pass seat. please excuse the language in the following sentence.

but as a passenger scared the SH!T out of me. and yea there is NO WAY you could have stayed in the seat like described above.

James, this is exactly what I was saying. I don't really care about the import racers, spectators, or sponsors (gasp!), or even the late model guys sponsors, etc. What I do care about is fair racing, because I am a racer. Been involved in racing since the early 90's.
Do we not have some ownership in this deal? It's totally irrelevant, but I'm glad that the import crowd seemed excited to be there. They should be excited to be there, when they know that they are out gunning a bunch of old cars. So I'll say it again, I'm interested in fairness. I do appreciate the younger crowd, the next generation, as you called them. I hope they stick around, and possibly even catch on to what "we" are all shooting for, which is trying to up the performance levels of our old cars, and then instead of street racing, which is stupid, find a venue to compete against ONE ANOTHER, in fairness. As Mark said, and I'll say this again, I don't want build a cool old car, and then go run it against late model cars. Well I don't either. In fact, come springtime and I pull into some of these venues, I'll be downright upset, if I have to face off against an all wheel drive import. That's not what I'm building my car for. So why not have a class just for those of us with old cars? Let the late model guys race against themselves!
The performance parts that me and you are purchasing today, for our old cars, were bred and designed out of the desire to make our cars more competitive against each other, due to events and series like these. If the future of these organizations cater to the late model guys, and the "Pro Touring" community gets left behind, then "we" suffer. At the end of the day, it's all just a hobby for us on this side. Hopefully the promotors will listen to the little guys, and at least keep this hobby fair.
Jody, I don't know if there is a correct answer to your question...

My .02 pesos...

Totally agree.
And from what Rodney was telling me, this is the number one rated show on MAVTV. Or at least one episode was. Its a small network now but.....who knows?

Lance,
So you're saying that with one or two minor changes the CAM class should work as intended, yes?

Yes, I think so... Here are the results from the SCCA Nationals last September...Combined times from both East and West course

CAM-T
Mike Dusold 1967 Camaro 129.6977
Robby Unser 1964 Nova 132.058
Stephen Yeoh 1969 Camaro 132.245
Alan Schoonmaker 1969 Camaro 133.657
Jason Smith 1964 Nova 138.985

CAM-S
Scott Fraser 1966 Cobra 126.342
Bruce Cambern 1966 Cobra 132.812

CAM-C
Keith Lamming 2011 Camaro 132.906
Mike Trenkle 1985 Mustang 133.218
Lance Hamilton 1985 Monte Carlo 135.534
Chris Brake 2005 Ford Mustang 137.434
Kelley Jaeger 1985 Mustang 139.905
Stephanie Stribling 2005 Mustang 140.011
Valerie Pichette 1988 Pontiac GTA 142.701



Where they would have finished under my scenario of CAM and CAM Extreme


CAM
Robby Unser 1964 Nova 132.058
Stephen Yeoh 1969 Camaro 132.245
Alan Schoonmaker 1969 Camaro 133.657
Lance Hamilton 1985 Monte Carlo 135.534
Jason Smith 1964 Nova 138.985
Valerie Pichette 1988 Pontiac GTA 142.701

All very similarly prepped and looking cars

CAM Extreme
Mike Dusold 1967 Camaro 129.6977
Mike Trenkle 1985 Mustang 133.218 (315s all the way around)
Kelley Jaeger 1985 Mustang 139.905


These cars would have fit into other already existing SCCA classes that they are competitive in

Scott Fraser 1966 Cobra 126.342 XP I think
Bruce Cambern 1966 Cobra 132.812 XP I think
Keith Lamming 2011 Camaro 132.906 FS
Chris Brake 2005 Ford Mustang 137.434 ESP I believe
Stephanie Stribling 2005 Mustang 140.011 ESP I believe


I think we all ran better times on Tuesday on the West course, here are our best times just from that day:

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


CAM Extreme
Mike Dusold 1967 Camaro 62.764
Mike Trenkle 1985 Mustang 64.042
Kelley Jaeger 1985 Mustang 67.802

To me, those two groupings just look like more evenly matched cars and times. Dusold's 1967 Camaro is Extreme I think we'd all agree and Trenkle's Mustang is similar looking. All of the cars in CAM were stock sheetmetal, small tired, but all with very modified drivetrains and the top 4 were within 3/4s of a second of each other.

These below just didn't fit in in my opinion, all for different reasons.

Scott Fraser 1966 Cobra 61.335
Bruce Cambern 1966 Cobra 63.463
Keith Lamming 2011 Camaro 64.672
Chris Brake 2005 Ford Mustang 66.801
Stephanie Stribling 2005 Mustang 67.913

If I could find the results for the Pro Solo Invitational qualifying times, the results would be similar only the Extreme would be more represented by the 3 Lesinger vehicles (with respective times) and CAM would be more represented by several stock sheet metal'd small tire muscle cars. There were also more late model Mustangs and 5th gen Camaros that were constantly putting down better times than the CAM cars.

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.

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.

You're right on Preston, every word of it. What made the optima event special and interesting is not what makes for a "fair" race.

Really strong points Preston. You can race your way in, use humility, be invited to participate. The balance of cars was excellent this year. Vintage, makes, colors, noises, etc.. It seems difficult to sanction. That was where my comments came from, it's a great event that is a luxury for the competitors and will continue as long as sponsors see value.

Rodger makes a valid point, it's made for TV. I just see it as a show that will lose it's luster like every other reality show. Judging by the crowd and rules, the racing won't sustain it.

I mostly lurk here but have some inside perspective on some of this, in particular with SCCA's CAM class.

My "insider" status comes from I wrote the rules for the Indianapolis Region that SCCA used to create CAM and I'm personal friends with Raleigh and Velma Boreen, the couple from SCCA who have been representing SCCA @ Optima last week and GG this week. Raleigh is employed by SCCA and one of his charges is plotting the direction of CAM.

Comparing CAM to the Optima series is an apples to oranges deal. Optima is a dedicated series while CAM is a class (soon to be a category, more on that further down) within SCCA's Solo program. Further, CAM is what's considered within Solo as a "Regional" class. That means the class is not eligible for National Championship status nor is it an included class at SCCA National Tour events (Champ Tour, Match Tour, Pro-Solo). It can and has been added as a supplemental class at many Tour eventsand as most are aware, it was added as an Invitational supplemental class during the Pro-Solo Finale as well as a supplemental class(es) at the Solo Nationals. The winners of those events are not recognized by SCCA as National Champions, just winners of those classes at that event.

The purpose of CAM is not to compete with USCA, GG, or anyone else but rather to give people with PT type cars, street machines, and hot rods a class at local SCCA Solo events. Since these cars are not built to a ruleset, under the standard SCCA Solo rules structure, Regions would class cars that showed up where they think they should go. Don't need to go into all that as most of you know what those problems were. People would show up with a street machine, run an event or two, then be gone. CAM hopes to solve that problem and by and by large it has. Many Regions have reported that participation in CAM has been very good and that's what SCCA was after. Get people to come to (Regional) events and keep coming. It's working.

When I wrote the rules for the Indy Region I took GG's rules, copied them, then changed things to make sure they fit SCCA safety rules. I used their rules because they were the most open and strictly autocross focused. When SCCA National got involved they spent an entire year talking to organizations and competitors as to what they wanted to see. CAM was what came from those conversations. SCCA published the rules and asked Regions to play with the class to see what works best. Comparing CAM to what Optima / USCA does will never be 100% the same because of the differences in scope of either bodies events.

Now that I've bored all of you to tears with my long winded dissertation, here's what happening with CAM as I know it and why some of the things being suggested here probably won't see the light of day in CAM. 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.

Now I will agree with those who say that organizers like Optima should look into creating a class for vintage cars. I've followed the series from the beginning and yes, traditional PT cars are beginning to fall behind.

Last thing, SCCA wants to set and announce the 2015 CAM rules by the PRI show, hopefully sooner. Stay tuned.....

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

Thanks for taking the time to give us insight Dave.

Much appreciated. :thumbsup:

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.

Well done Preston.

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**

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?

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.

That's the facts of life with autocross, people are going to always want to go where it's going to be easier to win. There are people all over the US that are changing their cars yearly based on what cars are in what class. It happens.

That's not entirely true. In our Region, the influx of late model cars in CAM was due to the open nature of the rules and the ability to be competitive. The classes where a late model Mustang or Camaro falls on street tires in the normal SCCA structure puts them up against all wheel drive cars like the Evo and STi. And that's given that the mods on the muscle car doesn't push them beyond that and into race tire classes. To a man (or woman) competitor I've talked to with late model cars in CAM are there because they like not having to worry about rules.

Hence why the classes aren't being split by an arbitrary model year, rather platform generations. Example: To say to someone with a 1990 Camaro that their car isn't legal for the class when it's the same car as an 1989 is silly. You can say "Well, we can make an exception". Why? Instead just say Camaros 1 through 3 are in this class, 4th and 5th generation Camaros are in that class. Or however the split is decided.

Also to start splitting by amount of modifications is counter to what CAM is. It is a hot rodders' class. Hot rodding is about modifying one's car for better performance and style. If one chooses to only go so far with a build, that's up to them. The whole idea of all of this regardless of whether it's SCCA, Optima, GG, whoever, is to give a place for hot rodders some way to show off their driving and building skills.

CAM doesn't need to be a National Championship class. As I said before, the majority of respondents when asked about "National" status said it wasn't important. Also, competitors wanting step beyond local competition has several avenues to follow now. They can run Optima, GG, or whoever else that offers a larger stage to perform on. Or with some changes, a competitor can enter SCCA's "national" stage in one of the many classes that already exist. Is SCCA planning some special CAM focused events? You bet. But they are being planned as "experience" events. The focus will be more on the experience than the intense competition focus that SCCA National events have. The focus will be on SCCA showing entrants a good time, something people will want to do again because it was a blast to be there.

This thread was started because the late models and imports dominated the PT cars at the OUSCI. Some thought there might need to be some sort of rule change made to help everyone still be able to participate without being dominated unfairly.

The exact same discussion was being held by those that participated in the CAM Pro Solo prior to OUSCI and I knew that the SCCA guys were watching the OUSCI to see how it went.

I felt it was the perfect opportunity to make something good...better. Thats all. I'll still play in both arenas regardless, and I'll still have a blast.

"What would a USCA Pro touring class look like" hmmmm. The USCA conducted 10 events this year and Pro Touring cars won 5 of them (Over 3K). The Over 3K class had the lion share of entries at each race this year so maybe the USCA needs to look at the three classes they currently have first. Then decide from there. Having classes throughout the season is fine for trying to qualify for the OUSCI event, but in the end it all comes down to one big race with no classes at all during the grand finale. So why have any classes at all? I think the reason we are having this conversation is because of the caliber of cars that raced last weekend. Some Pro Touring and some super mosquito EVO's (who did a great job by the way), some 5th Gens, some Porsches, some GTR's! So why have a special class for Pro Touring? They won it last year, they didn't this year.

That is one way to look at it.

The other way is to make sure we keep these great cars coming back to race and make them relevant in every race the USCA conducts and the OUSCI. Mark Stielow said it perfectly. He could race a 5th Gen Camaro, spend half the money that it takes to build a killer 1st Gen Camaro and be successful with it. But that's not what he wants to do or what he is about. Hellfire is a superb example of what a 1969 Camaro would look like if it was built today....only better! That car was by far and away the fastest car on the strait away on the Las Vegas road course at the OUSCI, nobody could touch him. So to preserve this legacy that we call Pro Touring might be is we need to have a separate class for them, yet still compete overall. They are not over the hill yet! It would keep them competing through out the season and at the OUSCI.

Congrats Ken on winning the points championship for 3000# and over, and thanks for taking the time to post. My thought is if there's isn't some sort of protouring or older car class the big hitters will either build late model purpose built cars to be competitive, or drop out completely. There will always be some protouring guys to compete, many who do it for fun or are just excited to be there. But there's also the competitive guys who won't spend the time and money if there's no chance of winning. Those are the guys we don't want to lose.

I'll post more on this idea later (I'm getting on a plane and will have some time) but what if, rather than asking USCA (et al) to create a class for "us" - an idea which I strongly disagree with - if there really is a demand why not create our "own class" that can run within the USCA for an independent title?

:whistling:

Well... At least the SCCA gave us a decent PAX for 2015.

http://home.comcast.net/~paxrtp/rtp2015.html

Let's remember this is also a television show, SEMA, and sponsor driven. I have always been a huge fan of what Jimi is/was doing with this series.....but let's be honest here, it goes away without the unique twist that PT/ G-machines bring to fold.

Hate to be harsh, but who is tuning in to see the 5th gen or mid 2000's Vette run around by itself? Some yes, but that is not, I believe, what the vision of this series was moving forward. USCA can still cater to the later model cars, but realize the focus and class rules should be tailored to cars that will keep this series alive. I think we all know which cars those are.

I think Sik68 had the right idea. Two classes, "early models" and "late models". That way if I want to chase Mark or Kyle around for the Early model win I can drive Blu, or if I want to chase Danny or Ken around for the Late model win, I can drive the C5. And if I really want to go for the overall, I can build a Ken Block AWD, and try to keep up with the RS Motors gang.:sarcasm_smiley: Seriously the AWD guys are going to be tough to beat! :Tomcat:

LOL... I finally watched the Gymkhana video yesterday and wondered if Jimi offered him a Golden Ticket. I wonder how someone of that caliber could have placed. I think road course would have been his weak spot due to discipline and car setup.

^ I think the driver rules woulda put him in exhibition class Chris (?), but yeah seeing that car run would be fun!

I remember when Tanner Foust came out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRO5uUV7bps

Just an observation here gang.... While I appreciate everyone like to compete the real thrust of this was setup to challenge your own time. If you want truly competitive racing you almost need to consider a highly regulated SCCA type format..

Now this said, can 75% of you honestly tell me who finished where and at what event??? I highly doubt it to honest. So here we are, a group of middle aged and graceful aged ;-) men and women that play this game for the most part... If we look at our lives, I willing to bet a good portion of them like to feel 21 at heart, but realize they aren't...

So what brings us together???
- We like to challenge ourselves in the cars in a safe environment, likely...
- I know see my car family at events knocks me over, what about you?
- If we each had the wonder car, I mean the perfect weapon,, are we going to on average beat the top drivers,,,,, I'd guess no for the most part.
- I don't know about you guys but I can say when someone, anyone shows up with a cool car that has been done right (your basic 69 by Mark, or Brian Finch that can both build it,, and drive it).... That's a benchmark moment that I really enjoy and almost always see a thread of few threads all about the car and how it ran...
- Being a foodie,,,, The party and telling the lies around the cars all day and evening rate extremely high for me,,, how about you? I'd almost go as far to say there are few that can name the winners of events all year but many that can tell about the lies, food and partys...

I guess the point I'm trying to bring up here is,,, there is always someone faster. While it's a gas to go fast and win, it may not be all it's cracked up to be... and certain drivers are going to dominate... I guess we have to decide why we're showing up on our own.

The different innovation going on and the limited rules provides the perfect breeding grounds for creativity.. I sure spend more time looking at the new muscle car builds,, and get more pleasure from seeing my friends at these events than any thoughts of "who's in first can bring"....

Bret Volkel put it best a few years ago,,,, """We are a Drinking club with a car problem""""... This is a social event,, not a race (at least for me),, the difference here is I get to toss the all to often penguin suite in my life and all socially correct BS for a Hell of a good day/s in a car around some of the best & most fun people I've ever hung out with... Just some food for thought on what brings you to an event,, to possibly consider as to what floats your boat within this hobby/lifestyle..

I see that it was suggested Two classes, "early models" and "late models",,I think it should be 2 classes also but those should be a Electronics and Standards class

Electronics Class- to included ANY car with any Traction controls, ABS or Electronic Differentials

Standards Class- to included ANY car without Electronic Driver aids

that keeps the field even.....its simple if you want to add ABS or traction controls to your early 60's or 70's car...then you race against cars with the same drivers aids such as Corvettes, 5th Gen Camaros, all wheel drives and so on....and early Iron cars can have a more even group

The only problem with that is an older 60's muscle car with ABS for example cannot compete equally with a late model Vette with equal power and driving skills. The later model car has a huge advantage in aero, center of gravity, and track width.

The only problem with that is an older 60's muscle car with ABS for example cannot compete equally with a late model Vette with equal power and driving skills. The later model car has a huge advantage in aero, center of gravity, and track width. Having ABS does not make them equal.

agreed, but this is in play to even the Vintage car field...I know of two cars at the last OUSCI event, Steilows 69 Camaro and Thurmans 64 vette both had ABS...I know that they cant compete with the modern cars...but those aids help them against classic muscle, all drivers aids drive together, or remove the aids completely and return to the standards class

I understand it gives them an advantage over the older cars, but it isn't anywhere near enough to make them compete evenly with late model cars. So I still don't think that's the way to make two classes.

With the variety of cars, it's going to be tough to legislate something that makes anyone happy. I still think going back to a heavier weighted design point system is the simplest way. It worked well in the past. If I recall, it bounced back and forth from old to new that way?