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

[GregWeld]

Originally Posted by GrabberGT

Well dont leave us hanging. Exactly how will this new class be defined. We expect to see a definitive line drawn between the 2 categories. This will allow is to properly debate how it will be scored to give the "Stow" (street show) cars a fighting chance.


The more we talk about it, the more I find myself thinking of Rons idea of an Unlimited class. AKA Strace Car.

Street/Race Cars unlimited and "all others"?? This gives you two classes... but would you still want to see an overall winner? That to me is where this class issue begins to breaks down. Hard to have "a" winner that anyone would be okay with... The discussion starts to come full circle in a us against them... because "we" can't win. "We" being Pro Touring.

Pro-Touring just isn't a large enough audience. They (USCA) struggled at every event to fill the spaces required. And as far as selling the TV show... the PT crowd just isn't all that well known (yet) or followed except by "us". WE think it's the greatest thing ever... But "We" are a few thousand people....

Don't get me wrong.... I have two race cars that I'd love to be able to run at these events. So I'd be happy to see a full on race car class - but then that's just selfish and has nothing to do with these events (which I've traveled 1000's of miles to support, since day one, without ever having a car in any of them).


My personal feeling is -- once you have definitions and classes... those with the skills / bank / desire - will find a way to trump all of the written rules... And what will that lead to? More expensive builds - cutting out more and more people that can't "compete". Then this whole thing would be super boring.

[DBasher]

Looking at the sponsors from this year most of em sell to the muscle car crowd, doesn't it make sense to ad a class? Call it muscle car and put a year break in....done. No more rules just another class, the rules get refined every year, or at least the rule breakers get frowned upon
The other thing is the "PT" crowd needs to stop talking about it and go do it! I'd hate to see this turn into a tuner, AWD, new car series.


Dan

[James OLC]

Originally Posted by DBasher

Looking at the sponsors from this year most of em sell to the muscle car crowd, doesn't it make sense to ad a class? Call it muscle car and put a year break in....done. No more rules just another class, the rules get refined every year, or at least the rule breakers get frowned upon
The other thing is the "PT" crowd needs to stop talking about it and go do it! I'd hate to see this turn into a tuner, AWD, new car series.


Dan

Sponsors:

OPTIMA Batteries
BFGoodrich
Detroit Speed
Jet Hot Coating
K&N Filters
Lingenfelter
Red Line Oil
Ride Tech
Wilwood
Holley
Intercomp
Snap-On
Racing Junk
Showtime Motorsports

Which one is dependant on Pro-Touring? Yeah... none of them.

I for one hope that we never find ourselves competing to be the "Ultimate CAM or CAM Equivalent Street Car"

As Greg said with support (fan support included if this year is any indication) the OUSCI event is not going anywhere for a while.

[DBasher]

Originally Posted by James OLC

Sponsors:

OPTIMA Batteries
BFGoodrich
Detroit Speed
Jet Hot Coating
K&N Filters
Lingenfelter
Red Line Oil
Ride Tech
Wilwood
Holley
Intercomp
Snap-On
Racing Junk
Showtime Motorsports

Which one is dependant on Pro-Touring? Yeah... none of them.

Never said anything about dependent on PT. Quite a few have a specific line of parts geared toward what most on this site are doing though. James, just because another class exists doesn't mean you'd be pigeon holed, stay in the GT class and continue having fun!

[96z28ss]

Originally Posted by James OLC

Sponsors:

OPTIMA Batteries
BFGoodrich
Detroit Speed
Jet Hot Coating
K&N Filters
Lingenfelter
Red Line Oil
Ride Tech
Wilwood
Holley
Intercomp
Snap-On
Racing Junk
Showtime Motorsports

Which one is dependant on Pro-Touring? Yeah... none of them.

I think you have some on that list that are dependant on pro-touring and majority of there revenue is vintage cars pre 1989.

I can't believe you listed DSE. I'm guessing 95% of there business is pro-touring. They only have late model Camaro stuff. 5 pages out of 125, of their catalog.

Ride tech they have systems and components that work on everything that has wheels on it. I bet most of their sales is in the pro-touring and vintage car market.

[TheJDMan]

As everyone knows, a true race car is built to conform to a pre-existing set of rules for the class in which in which it will be competing. As a result these rules are typically very specific in nature to deal with specific issues that have come up previously.

The problem here is that we are discussing a set of rules which need to cover an entire segment of cars built to what ever level using what ever parts the individual owners chose. The result is that pro-touring cars have no commonality of parts or form. From that stand point any competition rules must of necessity be general in nature. This is why, IMO, the SCCA CAM class makes so much sense.

I give SCCA a great deal of credit for recognizing pro-touring and pro-mod as an emerging automotive segment which emphasizes well rounded car performance not just straight line speed and which did not fit well into any of their existing competition classes. It is apparent that SCCA is actively attempting to attract these pro-touring cars to attend their events with the introduction of the CAM class.

IMO, the obvious solution here is for the USCA to simply adopt the existing CAM class rules and run a CAM class next year in addition to the current classes. I see no logical reason to spend a lot of time and energy to reinvent the wheel that SCCA already has in place. It also seems to me that NASA, GG, etc. would be smart to adopt the CAM class rules as well which would go a long way to creating a uniform set of rules which would allow PT cars to compete in multiple events across multiple organizations.

[SSLance]

Originally Posted by TheJDMan

It is apparent that SCCA is actively attempting to attract these pro-touring cars to attend their events with the introduction of the CAM class.

IMO, the obvious solution here is for the USCA to simply adopt the existing CAM class rules and run a CAM class next year in addition to the current classes. I see no logical reason to spend a lot of time and energy to reinvent the wheel that SCCA already has in place. It also seems to me that NASA, GG, etc. would be smart to adopt the CAM class rules as well which would go a long way to creating a uniform set of rules which would allow PT cars to compete in multiple events across multiple organizations.

The problem I see with that is...the same thing happened at the SCCA CAM Pro-Solo invitational. Some race cars on street tires showed up and dominated all 3 classes giving the larger numbers of real PT street cars a sour taste in their mouth.

The SCCA has realized this and that is why they went to OUSCI this year and are working with OUSCI and GGs to find a solution to this that will hopefully give all of the above cars a fun place to compete on level playing fields.

Maybe "sour taste" is a bit of a stretch, we all still had a blast. Probably not unlike how the bottom half of the OUSCI crowd felt. A long time veteran of the SCCA asked me though during the Pro-Solo if "this is what I envisioned the CAM class becoming" while watching the race cars on street tires...and I replied "No". But with just one or two simple rules, the race cars can be split from the street cars by class and we all still get to go out and have fun and put on a show for those watching.

[TheJDMan]

Originally Posted by SSLance

The problem I see with that is...the same thing happened at the SCCA CAM Pro-Solo invitational. Some race cars on street tires showed up and dominated all 3 classes giving the larger numbers of real PT street cars a sour taste in their mouth.

The SCCA has realized this and that is why they went to OUSCI this year and are working with OUSCI and GGs to find a solution to this that will hopefully give all of the above cars a fun place to compete on level playing fields.

Maybe "sour taste" is a bit of a stretch, we all still had a blast. Probably not unlike how the bottom half of the OUSCI crowd felt. A long time veteran of the SCCA asked me though during the Pro-Solo if "this is what I envisioned the CAM class becoming" while watching the race cars on street tires...and I replied "No". But with just one or two simple rules, the race cars can be split from the street cars by class and we all still get to go out and have fun and put on a show for those watching.

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

[SSLance]

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.

[chetly]

Originally Posted by SSLance

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.