Quote:
Originally Posted by SSLance
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...
|
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