Enter your username:
Do you want to login or register?
  • Forgot your password?

    Login / Register



    Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
    Results 41 to 60 of 168
    1. #41
      Join Date
      Oct 2009
      Location
      San Diego, CA
      Posts
      226
      Our region can make any kind of Pro-Touring class it wants, don't need the national org to pave the way.



    2. #42
      Join Date
      Sep 2011
      Location
      Speedway In.
      Posts
      191
      Country Flag: United States
      Jason,

      The rules are written the way they are because it's a reflection of rules most pro-touring competitors already run under. The only place where the SCCA went off the reservation was with the minimum weight and that was added because of input from competitors running PT cars in PT series. The 2 major sanctioning bodies for PT autocross events are Goodguys and the American Street Car Series and those series rules weighted the SCCA's decisions heavily. Here's links to those rules:

      Goodguys: https://www.good-guys.com/autocross-rules

      ASC: http://americanstreetcarseries.com/rules/

      Someone going through all the trouble of building a car like you describe just to become the Mud Creek Region SCCA CAM "Champion" is pretty slim. If it does happen then the officials at the Mud Creek region have the power to deal with it. Are the rules perfect? No. What rules are? But it is a starting point. If CAM takes off and there's demand to expand it then yes, the rules will have to tighten. For now, SCCA's rules are as imperfect as everyone else's rules where folks compete with PT cars and that's a good starting point.

      Pro Touring cars are hot rods first and competition cars second. They are expressions of the owner's talents and vision of what the "perfect" car should be. They aren't built to rules like a racecar but rather to the owner's taste or trend that the owner finds to their liking.
      Dave Dusterberg
      http://www.facebook.com/camchallengeeast
      1979 Aspen R/T (under construction soon to be #19 CAM/T)
      2002 Ram 1500 SLT
      2005 Magnum R/T
      2005 Mustang GT #19 CAM/C

    3. #43
      Join Date
      Oct 2009
      Location
      San Diego, CA
      Posts
      226
      If CAM starts to succeed, winning it (at whatever scale) might become important to someone, which might lead them to build something resembling a full effort car. When people see what that looks like, they will freak out, and the rules will have to be tightened.
      There are two ways to get to the same end state I think anybody who's been at this a while, knows it needs to get to. This route of gradual ratcheting-back involves the wasting of countless competitor hours and dollars expended in good faith, in the spirit of being the strongest legitimate competitor they can. There are a dozen other things just like the minimum weight that need to be put into effect and explained, I believe it better,and more honest to this new contingent of potential SCCA members, to do so from the start.
      If I were in a position to dictate the path, not sure my conscience would allow me to so easily choose and defend the one that was so certain to waste so much honest competitor resources.

    4. #44
      Join Date
      Jan 2014
      Location
      Trenton WI
      Posts
      1
      Country Flag: United States
      SCCA needs to do something. I have been going to the Run-Offs for several years, and membership is down and most of the cars also participate in the vintage events.

    5. #45
      Join Date
      Nov 2005
      Location
      Central California
      Posts
      2,050
      Country Flag: United States
      Dave ...

      To save me having to go through reams of posts, will this class be Provisional for Tours and the Solo Nationals this year (2014)? I'm hoping so as I'll be there if it is. Support of these "new" classes at the Regional level is the main springboard to getting them added to our Divisionals, National Tours, and the big show in September in Lincoln, NE.

      Through the years, we've all seen cars built to the gnats ass of the "rules" yet don't win. These cars must be driven and just the act (and $$$ thrown at the thing) of the build won't get it done.

      Kudos to you and your Region in moving this class in the right direction and gathering the attention of the Solo Department. There are so many of our type of cars and builds that are still basically street cars and will never be competitive in CP, not to mention EM. Giving us our own class will get the owners away from the car shows and lawn chairs, and behind the wheel driving the snot outta them.

      Mary Pozzi
      mpozzi . . . '73 Camaro RS, '69 Camaro SCCA/Trans-Am vintage racer, and a 1989 R7U 1LE Players Challenge car.

      "STICK, you B*TCH!!!!!!"

      "It's not a horse. You can't train it!! "


    6. #46
      Join Date
      Sep 2011
      Location
      Speedway In.
      Posts
      191
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by mpozzi View Post
      Dave ...

      To save me having to go through reams of posts, will this class be Provisional for Tours and the Solo Nationals this year (2014)? I'm hoping so as I'll be there if it is. Support of these "new" classes at the Regional level is the main springboard to getting them added to our Divisionals, National Tours, and the big show in September in Lincoln, NE.

      Through the years, we've all seen cars built to the gnats ass of the "rules" yet don't win. These cars must be driven and just the act (and $$$ thrown at the thing) of the build won't get it done.

      Kudos to you and your Region in moving this class in the right direction and gathering the attention of the Solo Department. There are so many of our type of cars and builds that are still basically street cars and will never be competitive in CP, not to mention EM. Giving us our own class will get the owners away from the car shows and lawn chairs, and behind the wheel driving the snot outta them.

      Mary Pozzi
      CAM can be added as a supplemental class by Regions hosting Tour events. Indy is adding CAM to the Match Tour we are hosting on the July 4th weekend at Grissom. Hopefully interest will be such in other hosting Regions that they will add CAM. The only way for that to happen is have enough involvement in CAM and interest in it being added to their Tour events.

      Thanks for the vote of confidence Mary!
      Dave Dusterberg
      http://www.facebook.com/camchallengeeast
      1979 Aspen R/T (under construction soon to be #19 CAM/T)
      2002 Ram 1500 SLT
      2005 Magnum R/T
      2005 Mustang GT #19 CAM/C

    7. #47
      Join Date
      Jul 2012
      Location
      San Diego
      Posts
      432
      Country Flag: United States
      Hello Mary

      One thing I've noticed in a Past National SOLO 2 Championship results.What I think was a street legal car finished second in CP.Brian H's orange Camaro. If over 5 liters the weight rules are the some as CAM.Just saying CAM on Sticky tires can top three in CP in Nebraska finals.If your even legal in CP.If you are all you need is tires. Then I could be wrong about that car too.For a guy that plays with a WANKLE. I have a lot of Pro-Touring data stuck in my head..

    8. #48
      Join Date
      Aug 2012
      Location
      Peoria, AZ
      Posts
      1,758
      Country Flag: United States
      I've been told that the Kansas City and Kansas regions plan on running CAM at their Match Tours and possibly Champ Tours and Pr Solo as well.
      Lance
      1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car

    9. #49
      Join Date
      Sep 2010
      Location
      Beach Park IL
      Posts
      2,838
      Country Flag: United States

      SCCA is adding a class just for us!

      Yes, Brian's orange second gen took 2nd at nats in 2012 on goodyear slicks.
      Donny

      Support your local hot rod shop!

    10. #50
      Join Date
      Nov 2008
      Location
      Nor Cal
      Posts
      91
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by dontlifttoshift View Post
      Yes, Brian's orange second gen took 2nd at nats in 2012 on goodyear slicks.
      I did finish 2nd in 2012 in CP with a car that would be legal for CAM except for the side window rule. Goodguys, So Cal Challenge, USCA, and ASCS do not mandate side windows. There are a few of us out there that would need to install side windows to run CAM.

      The 3000 lb. rule should be without driver. All Prepared classes, including CP, and Street Mod, weigh the cars without drivers. Only Mod classes weigh with driver. Getting our large American cars under 3000 lbs. takes a lot of effort and really makes the cars not street cars anymore. My Camaro weighs about 3100 lbs. and is already pushing the envelope. Early Mustangs with light weight items are right around 3000 lbs.

      This class should be fun and give a lot of people a class to play in. As it is now, guys show up and have to run Fun Runs or in CP, EM, or SM and have no chance on 200 TW tires.

      Brian Hobaugh
      65 Corvette
      73 Camaro

    11. #51
      Join Date
      Apr 2010
      Location
      Pittsburgh, PA
      Posts
      717
      yeah but cars like mavericks, can be around 2800 with a v8 swapped in all stock body/interior..probably lighter if you swap in a turbo 2.3 i4
      72 buick skylark
      twin-turbo fuel injected buick 350..perhaps stroked to 370 in the works!

    12. #52
      Join Date
      Nov 2008
      Location
      Nor Cal
      Posts
      91
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Nothingface5384 View Post
      yeah but cars like mavericks, can be around 2800 with a v8 swapped in all stock body/interior..probably lighter if you swap in a turbo 2.3 i4
      That makes it a good car to play with. You can add the necessary lead weight where you want it to get it up to 3000 lbs. This is very common in autocross. In order to get the cars on an equal playing field, the weight needs to be at least 3000 lbs without driver. No way to get an A body type car, Camaro, Firebird, etc without gutting the car or using way too much carbon fiber body panels and exotic materials to get close to 3000 lbs. and still be a "street" car.
      Brian Hobaugh
      65 Corvette
      73 Camaro

    13. #53
      Join Date
      Oct 2009
      Location
      San Diego, CA
      Posts
      226
      If you're reading this thread and thinking "Hmm I'd like to build a car to do well in CAM" - my suggestion - don't! If you already have a car come run it, but don't spend any more money to improve its chances in the class.
      If the class begins to succeed (as we all hope it will) there will have to be many restrictions added. If I sound frustrated at all in this thread, it's because I don't wish to see honest good-faith competitors throw away money (not to mention time, energy) with anything they do in building for a class state they thought was there to last. We have a large pool of serious car enthusiasts here, that would make great potential long term SCCA members...but if their first few years are spent suffering the pain of relentless "takebacks", they are not likely to stick it out.

      I fight for the people! Be careful everyone!

    14. #54
      Join Date
      Oct 2009
      Location
      San Diego, CA
      Posts
      226
      Quote Originally Posted by 73CPCAMARO View Post
      That makes it a good car to play with. You can add the necessary lead weight where you want it to get it up to 3000 lbs. This is very common in autocross. In order to get the cars on an equal playing field, the weight needs to be at least 3000 lbs without driver. No way to get an A body type car, Camaro, Firebird, etc without gutting the car or using way too much carbon fiber body panels and exotic materials to get close to 3000 lbs. and still be a "street" car.
      Brian, my '67 is 2950 with a full interior, stock all-iron longblock, and a full tank of gas.

      In CAM, would do an all aluminum engine, hack up firewall for maximum setback, and do a custom tubular front frame and all carbon panels. That'd allow for 500lbs. of ballast just ahead of the rear axle to get rear weight to about 60%.
      Of course, even then, the car would be hopeless against a Cobra or Opel GT or whatever, that fits all the same stuff in a package 12" narrower and 3 feet shorter in length.
      Oh, and don't forget the AM wings!

    15. #55
      Join Date
      Nov 2008
      Location
      Lawrenceburg, TN
      Posts
      4,083
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by j-rho View Post
      Brian, my '67 is 2950 with a full interior, stock all-iron longblock, and a full tank of gas.
      don't worry it will get fatter, add a roll bar and harness bar along with harnesses a fuel cell and the support brackets for that and a rear firewall, its all fat to go faster

    16. #56
      Join Date
      Nov 2005
      Location
      Central California
      Posts
      2,050
      Country Flag: United States
      I see the opposite happening and people with "our type of car" WILL come out to more events as they now have a class that's more fair ... no Hoosiers, Kumho's or slicks, and they're actually street cars.

      Not everyone has Nationals aspirations yet are willing to come out and have fun at local events and possibly a Tour. The Good Guys autox paddock is overflowing with these cars and there's often a wait line in place in case someone doesn't show up Sunday (rare but it happens). It would be great if SCCA could capture some of this interest as well.

      Past history of Solo classes has shown growth of the sport ... period. I started competing Nationally in 1979 and this was the first or second year that parallel Ladies Classes were offered. There were Stock, Prepared, and Modified ... that was it. I think the total number of separate classes was around 24. Fast forward to 2013 and we've got a few (gazillion) more categories and classes. All of these were formed because of the type of cars that wanted a place to run and their level of modifications.

      Will all Pro-Touring cars and builds be competitive at the Tour/Pro/National level? Absolutely not. Will everyone get a chance to have fun with what they built? Most definitely yes. And that is what it should be. There will be good competition and I can't wait.

      Mary Pozzi

      Quote Originally Posted by j-rho View Post
      If you're reading this thread and thinking "Hmm I'd like to build a car to do well in CAM" - my suggestion - don't! If you already have a car come run it, but don't spend any more money to improve its chances in the class.
      If the class begins to succeed (as we all hope it will) there will have to be many restrictions added. If I sound frustrated at all in this thread, it's because I don't wish to see honest good-faith competitors throw away money (not to mention time, energy) with anything they do in building for a class state they thought was there to last. We have a large pool of serious car enthusiasts here, that would make great potential long term SCCA members...but if their first few years are spent suffering the pain of relentless "takebacks", they are not likely to stick it out.

      I fight for the people! Be careful everyone!
      mpozzi . . . '73 Camaro RS, '69 Camaro SCCA/Trans-Am vintage racer, and a 1989 R7U 1LE Players Challenge car.

      "STICK, you B*TCH!!!!!!"

      "It's not a horse. You can't train it!! "


    17. #57
      Join Date
      Mar 2009
      Location
      Wake Forest,NC
      Posts
      843
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by j-rho View Post
      If you're reading this thread and thinking "Hmm I'd like to build a car to do well in CAM" - my suggestion - don't! If you already have a car come run it, but don't spend any more money to improve its chances in the class.
      If the class begins to succeed (as we all hope it will) there will have to be many restrictions added. If I sound frustrated at all in this thread, it's because I don't wish to see honest good-faith competitors throw away money (not to mention time, energy) with anything they do in building for a class state they thought was there to last. We have a large pool of serious car enthusiasts here, that would make great potential long term SCCA members...but if their first few years are spent suffering the pain of relentless "takebacks", they are not likely to stick it out.

      I fight for the people! Be careful everyone!
      If they start making a bunch of rules they will kill the participation from this group guaranteed. I've not run in an SCCA event and likely won't because they have too many damn classes and too many rules.

    18. #58
      Join Date
      Oct 2009
      Location
      San Diego, CA
      Posts
      226
      What I would have like to have seen from the outset:
      • A wheelbase minimum of at least 100"
      • A static front weight distribution of at least 52% (55% better)
      • A front tire max in the range of 275-295 on 10" wheels
      • A ride height minimum where the car has to be able to drive over a 55" wide 3-4" diameter pipe without anything touching
      • No wings


      Hopefully that's not too overbearing? Yes, that would exclude some people, but I think it would do a ton to preserve the long-term chances of the class making it.

      With this setup, I see people coming out at first, yes...but soon they'll see a Camaro, Mustang, Mopar or other 4-seat (CP) car that makes up the vast majority of the P-T scene, isn't as good a platform as a Corvette (BP car). This will be catalyzed by thing like Brian's recent win in the red car, and that top drivers like Danny and Junior are both building C3's. With more time we might see how the Corvette is second-fiddle to even more rare or distant-from-the-PT-core cars (AP, now XP, cars) that are even smaller and able to achieve better balance.

      There are ways to accommodate a very wide variety of cars in a single class, with things like variable wheel/tire and weight allowances. By opening it up like this, the early adopters of CAM in non-core cars or with non-core mods that end up "too fast" are going to end up paying for it. Seasoned people like you Mary, I think will see it coming, and take the right steps, but there are others here who don't have the experience with how racing rules evolve, and I just don't want to see them get burned.

    19. #59
      Join Date
      Aug 2007
      Location
      Roanoke (FortWorth) Texas
      Posts
      786
      I'll run in it if available locally. I usually just show up and say put me wherever anyway. (Usually ESP) If I were to tailor the class to my uneducated/new-to-scca expectations, the only thing I would change is request they define the term "Classic". It doesnt have to be 72 or older as GG does but I've always like the rolling 30 year cut-off.
      Chris

      Total Cost Involved - Ridetech - Fatman - Total Control Products - Gateway Performance - MaverickMan Carbon

    20. #60
      Join Date
      Jul 2012
      Location
      San Diego
      Posts
      432
      Country Flag: United States
      to 71rs

      For your car it is as simple as ESP,CP or SM.ESP cars can run in SM and CP. so SM or CP to make it simpler....If subframe changed then that's the issue.XP or EM I guess then.

      In short if you Want a CAM car to run in SCCA National SOLO2 Champion Nebraska this year.Then build a car that is both legal in CAM and CP.Street Legal CP=CAM pretty much or follow ESP or SM rules you have some firm ground to stand on then

      Just following CAM and you will have issues as you may have heard.Only reason I see for CAM is Subframe changes & frame swapping ,forced induction200 tires.Maybe it will take off ,maybe they will change CP a little.I hope I didn't start another debate.?.This debate has been going on for a year plus in or region.

      OUR SDR PT regulars are split on using SCCA SM rules Vintage SM others StreetLegal CP allowing subframe changes which fits CAM but not scca CP. on 200.(CORRECTION Subframe changes are allowed in CP, adding 300lb for the allowance)

      Maybe after all this chatter.Some will read these SCCA classes in the rule book for the first time.It will start to make sense then.Maybe Not so bad after all.pages 81 to 113.then to prepared classes 2013.

      Jason R.. I brought up the 4" pipe ground clearance rule at our first gathering of PTs in SDR 1.5 years ago.It also reduces fender clearing for tires.I wasn't getting much traction on it.Good to know I shared a unique idea with you...

    Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast




    Advertise on Pro-Touring.com