View Single Post
  #83  
Old 11-11-2014, 03:38 PM
Ron Sutton's Avatar
Ron Sutton Ron Sutton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,422
Thanks: 45
Thanked 35 Times in 26 Posts
Default

Hi Lance,

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by SSLance View Post
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.
As you weren't there to see it at this event ... what you're describing above basically did show up & were the fastest cars. I'm not sure on the aluminum skinned interior, but there were cars there with zero interior, full race cage, lightweight dash, one race seat, no creature comforts, killer engines running on race fuel, very little muffling, etc. ... on 200 tread wear tires.

As a racer, I loved it. It was fun to watch. But for the majority of guys that brought real streetable cars, they didn't have a chance & that's disheartening. Those guys had fun, but they won't come back consistently to be back markers. IMO ... I think USCA needs to leave it alone and just add "sub-classes" to reward & encourage the guys that are bringing real street cars in the division or class that best suits their car. Just keep it simple with 2-3 sub-classes, but everyone still participating together.



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 don't know if double is the right number. And if you'll notice I did not suggest that for the unlimited class ... just the sub-classes. I know the guys with real street cars felt the stripped down NASA/TT style race cars had an unfair advantage.

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.
Again ... my opinion doesn't matter ... and the guys that run USCA will make the decisions on what they think is best for their series, as they should.

But in my opinion, USCA doesn't need to concern itself "too much" with what other sanctioning bodies do, because only USCA is promoting the "Ultimate Street Car."

But it would help the sports of ProTouring, Autocross & HPDE/Track Days if USCA rules were close enough to not exclude legitimate cars. Just as an example, if USCA went to a rule allowing a different treadwear number (higher or lower) it would make it harder for entrants to participate that already run on 200TW tires in CAM or Goodguys autocross. So just keeping the basics the same is very helpful.

Only as an analogy: In dirt, winged Sprint Car racing the rules are pretty similar around the country. So when the big show (World of Outlaws) comes to town ... and it is a 45-50+ car field ... only 20-25 cars actually tour the series. The rest is made up of sprint cars that already race regionally. The World of Outlaws sanctioning body keeps the rules in line with the what happens nationally ... to make it easy for local & regional cars to join in the show & make it the big event it is. I used to do this same strategy with a touring drag race series I promoted. We usually had 9-11 cars that we brought, but if 6-8 more joined in, we had a pretty good field. (For drag race rookies a 16 car field with a 4-round ladder system is common.)


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?
In my scenario ... aka "not reality" ... if it was steel 1989 or older, it would fit into the Early American Iron sub-category regardless of back seat.

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.
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 !



__________________
Ron Sutton Race Technology
Reply With Quote