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

[Stielow]

The SCCA has started a CAM class.

I feel with a few tweeks the SCCA CAM class, Goodguys and USCA could use the same rules.

If the 3 groups could work togther we could have 3 places to run our cars under the same rules.

Classic American Muscle (CAM)

The purpose of CAM is to attract automobile enthusiasts to SCCA® who are currently interested in and/or participating in the Goodguys® Autocross events or other similar events for “classic” vehicles (e.g., Street Machine, Muscle Car, Hot Rod, Truck, Street Car, Late Model, etc.) built in North America by manufacturers based in the US (e.g., “The Big Three” – GM, Ford, and Chrysler).

Eligible Vehicles

• Vehicle must be considered a “street legal” (lights, wipers, etc.), US-domestic automobile of front-engine/RWD configuration or a “pick-up” truck. Must be licensed and insured.

• Vehicle must pass the mandatory safety inspection (tech) and be in compliance with Section 3, Vehicles, of the 2014 SCCA® National Solo® Rules.

• Vehicles must be 1984 or older.

• All body panels must be present in the original standard locations and may be modified or replaced. Exception: High-Boys (1954 and earlier), Roadsters (1954 and earlier), and Trucks (1940 and earlier) are not required to have fenders or hood sides.

• All glass must be present. Side glass components may be replaced by Lexan®.

• Interior must be finished and have minimum seating for two adults.

• The fuel tank/cell must be separated from the driver/passenger compartment by a metal panel/bulkhead. The fuel tank/cell shall not vent into the driver/passenger compartment.

Wheels and Tires

• Any metallic wheels are allowed. Non-metallic wheels must be certified from an appropriate, recognized standards organization (e.g., FIA, SFI, SAE, TUV, etc.).

• Only DOT-approved tires with a UTQG Treadwear Grade of 200 or more are permitted.

Body Electrical System

• Electrical components and wiring are unrestricted.

Brake System

• Brake system and components are unrestricted.

Suspension and Steering

• Suspension and steering components are unrestricted. Method of

attachment is unrestricted.

Engine and Drive Train

• Engine, drive train, and associated components (internal and external)

are unrestricted.

CAM –T (Traditional):

Gen 1-3 Mustang,
Gen 1 & 2 Camaro/Firebird,
Gen 1-3 Barracuda/Challenger, plus similar generation coupes/sedans going back to 1959

CAM –S (Sports): C1-3 Corvettes, Cobras, 2 seater AMX’s, Hot Rods

I would add the cars must maintain 90% of stock floor pans and maybe a minimum weight of 3000 - 3300lbs. No kit cars.
The minimum weight would keep the cars street cars.

I know this will not make everyone happy, but it would hit 80 percent of the cars.

Mark

[LS7 Z/28]

Originally Posted by Stielow

I would add the cars must maintain 90% of stock floor pans and maybe a minimum weight of 3000 - 3300lbs. No kit cars.
The minimum weight would keep the cars street cars.

I'm just a nobody, so my opinion really doesn't matter to the guys making the decisions within these organizations, but I really hope that a 90% stock floor pan rule is not put into effect. Otherwise I spent the last few years and a huge amount of my small salary building a car that won't be allowed to compete in any of the events.

I guess I don't see how having a custom floor in your car is enough of an advantage to disallow it. Especially if you have a minimum weight rule in effect.

Aluminum or some other light material on the floor would give you an advantage as far as total weight is concerned, but if you have a minimum weight rule then all of that goes out the window because if a car was under the minimum you would end up having to add lead ballast to the car.

My car has a custom floor that's made out of steel and I really didn't replace it because I thought it would be advantageous in any aspect, it was really more of a decision to make a safer structure to weld a rollcage to and properly attach the body to the chassis and it ended up around 20% stock floor pan.

Just my opinion I guess. I never thought I would ever be competitive in any of these events, but I definitely hoped to attend them and gain experience.

[GregWeld]

At the end of the day what is it that we want to achieve by actually using the cars we build?? We want to see if all the hard work and $$ and late nights actually pan out with a build that can perform (within all the limits of budget and talent and intent).

What have the good folks that run these events done for us? They've created a venue (several venues) in which there ARE NO RULES except some pretty basic ones - mostly safety... that are pretty "open" so that we can build "X" car and have a place to run it.

The beauty of track days is that a guy can go run and have fun with his buddies... There are plenty of these in every section of the country every weekend.

If a guy wants to be "competitive" within some class structure -- he can build a car to compete in whatever association he chooses. SCCA - NASA, or some other organization.

Isn't the beauty or the USCA/OUSCI events the fact that it's probably the only place that we can see so much diversity?

When I go to these events I know in advance that there's very few driver/car combos that can "win".... Hobaugh / Finch / Tucker / Mathews / Stielow / Maier / Pozzi / Popp.... They have the cars and the talent. While it's fun to watch these "pillars" duke it out... I love to see the other guys just out there pounding on their stuff - struggling - breaking - mending - meeting new friends and running on tracks they'd never ever get to drive on.

Why would we want to change that just to be able to declare someone the "winner". Aren't all of the participants winning in their own way?

[Blake Foster]

Originally Posted by GregWeld

At the end of the day what is it that we want to achieve by actually using the cars we build?? We want to see if all the hard work and $$ and late nights actually pan out with a build that can perform (within all the limits of budget and talent and intent).

What have the good folks that run these events done for us? They've created a venue (several venues) in which there ARE NO RULES except some pretty basic ones - mostly safety... that are pretty "open" so that we can build "X" car and have a place to run it.

The beauty of track days is that a guy can go run and have fun with his buddies... There are plenty of these in every section of the country every weekend.

If a guy wants to be "competitive" within some class structure -- he can build a car to compete in whatever association he chooses. SCCA - NASA, or some other organization.

Isn't the beauty or the USCA/OUSCI events the fact that it's probably the only place that we can see so much diversity?

When I go to these events I know in advance that there's very few driver/car combos that can "win".... Hobaugh / Finch / Tucker / Mathews / Stielow / Maier / Pozzi / Popp.... They have the cars and the talent. While it's fun to watch these "pillars" duke it out... I love to see the other guys just out there pounding on their stuff - struggling - breaking - mending - meeting new friends and running on tracks they'd never ever get to drive on.

Why would we want to change that just to be able to declare someone the "winner". Aren't all of the participants winning in their own way?

You so right Grasshopper

[SSLance]

Originally Posted by Stielow

The SCCA has started a CAM class.

I feel with a few tweeks the SCCA CAM class, Goodguys and USCA could use the same rules.

If the 3 groups could work together we could have 3 places to run our cars under the same rules.

Classic American Muscle (CAM)

Eligible Vehicles

• Vehicles must be 1984 or older.

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...

[Vegas69]

If you look at the gap between Popp and Hobaugh, it's roughly 25 points. The simplest way I see to get things back to even and fair is more weight on the design portion of the event. After all, a street car should have design appeal vs. a race car. Say a scale of 50 max. A riddler gets close to 50 where a modern corvette would get closer to 25. I'm sure some math could make this pretty fair for all with averages.

I'll be surprised if they want to get serious about sanctioning with a big book of rules for classes.

[dontlifttoshift]

Originally Posted by Vegas69

If you look at the gap between Popp and Hobaugh, it's roughly 25 points. The simplest way I see to get things back to even and fair is more weight on the design portion of the event. After all, a street car should have design appeal vs. a race car. Say a scale of 50 max. A riddler gets close to 50 where a modern corvette would get closer to 25. I'm sure some math could make this pretty fair for all with averages.

I'll be surprised if they want to get serious about sanctioning with a big book of rules for classes.

*Ridler

[dontlifttoshift]

80% of us can run all three (GG,USCA, CAM) now.

I have to do a bunch of math, but I think restructuring the points system would level the playing field without even really changing anything. Run the three existing classes at the finale......_maybe_ add a vintage PT class for a total of 4 classes.

So now you have 4 class winners, AWD, GT2K, GT3K, and PT3K but still no Ultimate Street Car. Those four winners have a hard boiled egg eating contest, most eggs wins!

Kidding about the eggs, but less classes, less rules is still the answer.

[pro71bird]

Originally Posted by dontlifttoshift

Those four winners have a hard boiled egg eating contest, most eggs wins!

My money is on Luke.......'Hey, Babaluga' 'Cool Hand Luke' ate 50 eggs.

[PTAddict]

Originally Posted by SSLance

Mark,

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.

Just guessing at Mark's intent here, but one effect of maintaining stock floor pan is that it makes it much harder to create a full-on tube frame style race car with a dropped body on top. 90% original floor pan would still allow for lesser but popular mods like mini tubs and weld-through frame connectors.