What would a USCA pro-touring class look like??
 

The 2014 USCA Optima Ultimate Street Car Invitational was awesome. Had a great time, and if you have a chance you really need to attend these events.

In the finals it's "run what you brung"; no classes for individual cars. But what would a pro-touring class look like if there were classes for competitors? I'd love to hear your thoughts. :thumbsup:

I've been involved with this discussion on the SCCA level in regards to their CAM class.

IMHO, a tire width rule is the simplest easiest way to separate the cars. My proposal was for 2 classes, one 275 series tires and under, the other for any car with wider tires. In their case the 3rd class for the 2 seaters is also appropriate and I don't have a problem with it either.

It really doesn't matter how much power you make or handle you have tuned into your car...if it's only got so much tire to grip the track, that's as fast as you are going to go. I see no need to further separate the body styles, model year, extent of mods...any further than tire size.

I think you need more than tire size. You put identical sizes on any 69 Camaro you want and a newer Vette, and with similar drivers and power the Vette wins every time. There's such a difference in aero, track width, center of gravity, etc. that the older car cannot make up the difference.

Here's a good example. Take a new ZR1 and "Jackass". They have identical engines, wheels/tires/brakes. Put Mark in both cars and he'll be much faster on the track in the new ZR1.

I don't think a meaningful discussion can be had about classing without clearly presenting the problem that one may be trying to solve with classing.

I believe simplest is best. I also believe the fastest driver will win 95% of the time.

At the end of the day, these cars dont drive themselves. So I agree with you 100%!

I don't disagree...but the Vette is a two seater. Let the two seaters run with the two seaters.

I see no reason to put my car on 275s in a different class than a 1969 Camaro on 275s. And a 1985 Fox Body on 315s should be in a class with a 1967 Camaro on 315s.

Weight limits and full interior restrictions can also come into play, but most guys with muscle cars on 275s are going to be the same guys that won't cut their fenders for wider tires nor strip their interiors for weight savings.

What we're looking to discuss is how to set up rules for a pro-touring class. There are huge advantages to run late model vehicles in this event if there's only one class. I'd like to see the older muscle cars we love and build be able to compete with each other. If your only goal is to win it all then you'll want to build a late model Vette, F-body, etc.

Yes a great driver in an older car can win, several have done that. But now that there's great drivers in all the cars the older stuff is much less competitive simply by the reasons I mentioned earlier. By the way, I am not against the later model cars competing. It was great seeing Danny and the others hauling butt on the track. I'm just afraid we'll lose the muscle car guys if they feel there's no way to openly compete.

Optima is always a lot of fun and it's been interesting to see it evolve over the years. The first few years Mary Pozzi was setting up the Autocross track and the field of cars was primarily made up of Pro Touring builds. DSE's rig was the biggest out there by far and we all just parked at the track or in the pits. When I think back to those events and compare to the field of competitors/cars run this years it's obvious that PT cars don't really stand a chance. IMHO it seems wrong to push the cars and people who helped start it all, out of the running. Cars from the PT community are a huge draw. I would like to see something along the rules put out by SCCA. It would even things up a lot and make for a better event.

http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44726

You didn't mention anything about two-seaters being a different class. ;) But I'll give you another example...

DSE's 5th gen Camaro against their own second gen Camaro. Both Camaros, put the same size tires on both (may already be the same, not sure) and the aero, track width, and center of gravity has the 5th gen quite a bit faster on the track. I don't remember the exact times, but DSE's 5th gen was a few seconds faster than their second gen on the road course. I believe they're similar power and both very capable drivers, but the advantages to the later model car are very apparent.

1. Driver experience- plays a huge role in the overall class
2. Cut off year for vehicles- separate the present day super cars from classic iron with technological upgrades.

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?

Totally agree with PTA above.

The part in bold was evidenced this weekend.

Let me put it this way... the older cars won't be competitive on the road course. The styling portion may equalize things a bit. The AWD's have an advantage on the speed stop and autocross much of the time (depending on course length and layout), with the late models in the mix. Muscle cars can win here, but not with yesterdays line up of cars. Where do the older muscle cars shine?

That is not true. In the qualifiers they are that way, the finals are all one class.

The fifth gen is still heavier than the second gen I think, but I'm not positive of that. Both are great drivers, and the fifth gen was several seconds faster on the road course yesterday. I don't think the fifth gen had bigger tires, they both had similar tire widths, put them both on 275's and I don't expect any change in which will be faster.

Guys,

This is not a complaint thread. I loved the event, Jimi and USCA did a GREAT job, and this one was as fun as all the others I've attended.

I was just wondering what you guys thought of having a muscle car class, and what rules/year cutoffs, etc. would there be if there was one. I think with the current rules and competition, if you want to win the whole deal you're going to be better off with something much past our muscle car era. Although it's cool to see the protouring cars be competitive, I think it's reached the point competition-wise that they're at a big disadvantage against the current group of cars competing.

I do NOT want to see the newer stuff eliminated, they're the best of the best. Watching the Evo launch in the autocross and win the event or watching Danny Popp just drive away from the fastest group in his 2003 Vette was awesome. Just thought it may be cool to have an older car class, say pre-1980 or whatever.

Either that or bump the minimum up to 3300-3400 pounds for the 275 and under class. It won't really matter as most of those cars with full interiors and stock sheet metal weigh over 3500 pounds anyway. Bumping it up a little may discourage cars like the white monster from throwing some interior panels in, bolting on some 275s and running that class.





I disagree. I know for a fact that the SCCA is highly interested in this conversation and was on hand last weekend at OUSCI working with the USCA folks as well as the Good Guys folks trying to find a common ground for all three series to work together so we (you and I) can build cars and take to all three event types and run competitively.



Against other muscle cars on similarly sized rubber...in all three event types ;)

Yeah, but they're not racing against other muscle cars for the title, they're racing against everything there. ;)

Jody, if I remember correct, Kyle had told me the fifth gen was 3700 plus lbs. They were trying to look for ways to drop weight as its still was a pretty heavy car. So I think your right the fifth gen is heavier but I'm not sure.

The 5th gen comes from the factory in a much closer representation of what is being raced at the event. About 20% of the original 2nd gen camaro remains and the 20% is the body and ornamental stuff. The 5th gen is nearly stock on comparison.

Believe it or not automotive engineers have learned a little bit since 1970.

You can only bolt so much stuff on a car to go that fast. Now it will take a complete slate requiring massive fabrication to even be competitive top 10 wise.

I'm gonna guess this will be the equivalent to Hot Rod Magazines Drag week Unlimited class very soon.

I agree completely. They want us to come and participate in their events and we want a place to run and feel like we are at least on the same playing field as others. There has to be a way to make it all work and I'm certain the powers that be are crunching numbers to make it work.

There is no reason that the factory late model cars, stockish appearing muscle (PT) cars, and the outlaw over the top race cars on street tires can't all attend the same types of events and share time running together. We are all there for the same common goal. The ruleset just needs a bit of fine tuning to level the fields a bit.

The tire size thing is a non-starter, IMO.

I've used my traqmate to log data in my car, vs. a track prepped C5 vette, both on Hoosier tires. Mine were 335 rear vs. 315 for the Vette, but otherwise identical. The Vette consistently generated an additional .1g or more lateral acceleration, even though the overall balance of my car was arguably more neutral. There could be multiple factors behind that, but you have to start with 500 lb weight advantage, lower CG, and wider track/wheelbase ratio.

Driver can't fix that.

Agree with Jody that I'm not complaining about the new cars - love to see them and try to compete with them. It's just a question of whether we want PT cars to become a permanent underclass in events like these ...

Yep. "thumbsup: Jimi is committed to this event, and I know he'll continue to improve it. We're getting some ideas here for possible changes to equalize things, or possibly a separate class. I'll make sure he gets our ideas at least for additional input on whatever they decide to do in the future.

It was a GREAT time and I really liked the venue change. Spring Mountain is a beautiful facility, but this has a lot more room and better for spectators in my opinion. I think it went very smooth for the first time with such a big change in venue and doubling of participants. USCA did a great job on this one.

Im all for open track day fun. Times, sure, bragging rights ok. But going out and pushing your abilities as far as driving and construction. Competition on a personal level.

Once competition gets heated it then becomes the guy who can spend the most, recieve the most training and who can do the most delelopment who will blow everyone out.

Once you start instituting rules to make it fair then it becomes who can bend the rules the most without going over and breaking them.

That said...Rodney Prouty, Aaron Oberle, Dan Ballard, Dan Howe, Sam and Deb Farrington, Jeff Montgomery, and Jane Thurmond, are just a few of the guys and gals in regular "our type" muscle cars that went to OUSCI this year and from everything I've seen or heard, they had an absolutely fabulous time there. I've seen "Weekend of a lifetime" mentioned several times...

And I suppose that they all ran around mid pack once things were ironed out. All very capable drivers in well sorted out Street Cars... I can't wait for the opportunity to do just the same, regardless of the ruleset.

The older I get the more I love anarchy. No more rules!!! When we started all this my biggest fear was a rule book like so many other forms of racing.

If its not the Feds its local government telling me what I have to do. Don't make my hobby the same way. Run what you brung, if it ain't enough then too bad. Take it home and make it faster.

That being said, I started playing in these forums because of my love of Muscle Cars. I truly have no desire to watch late models and ricers race. I can see that any track day on any road course in the United States. What made Lat G and Pro Touring so cool was seeing some of the coolest, nicest Muscle Cars in the country get the crap kicked out of them. Don't know what the answer is but its not more rules. Just my 2 cents.

If there were no pro touring cars back when OUSCI started, would it even exist as we know it today?

No doubt, I think the old cars bring the crowds. Just look at the One lap events.

Not really sure I understand the purpose of having classes in a competition to find the "Ultimate Street Car."

If it's a competition to find the best street driven car, then the only restriction should be that the car is registered and passes all registration requirements.

I realize not having classes makes it a lot harder for a classic muscle car to be competitive against some of the newer contenders, or for people not wiling to chop up their fenders to fit wider tires... but why does that matter at all.

Agree!

I agree that we will lose interest in it pretty quick when the newer cars start to dominate the scene. I think a Pro-touring class at the very least would be a great start. Define PT as Pre-80's with carryover body styles. Make the "street manners" section of the judging more meaningful to balance out against the streetable race cars. Move the cruise to the end of the event to get drivers to race more conservatively since they still have to complete the cruise in order to get those points. If you break your car or render it unstreetable during one of the racing events, you'll lose valuable cruise points. In my opinion, PT cars are not race cars. They are street cars with racing capabilities. You still have to be able to drive them after racing them. If any portion of the event cannot be completed, no points will be awarded for the event.