2015 SCCA CAM Rules

[IndyDave]

APPENDIX B - CLASSIC AMERICAN MUSCLE (CAM)

Rationale: The purpose of CAM is to attract automobile enthusiasts who are currently interested and/or participating in Goodguys®, Ultimate Street Car Association®, or other similar events for “classic” vehicles manufactured in North America by “The Big Three” based in the US (GM, Ford, and Chrysler). These avid enthusiasts would largely be a new and different group to join us as SCCA® members and participants. Regions are encouraged to offer this program using a single CAM class or the National Solo® supplemental classes to encourage Classic American Muscle car enthusiasts to join the fun at your SCCA Solo® events!

Eligible Vehicles

•Vehicle must be either a domestic automobile of front-engine/RWD configuration or a “pick-up” truck.

•Vehicle must be licensed and insured and considered fully “street legal” (lights, wipers, etc.). Windshield and glass must be OE or equivalent except as subsequently allowed. Interior and exterior must have a “finished” look.

•Vehicle must pass the mandatory safety inspection (tech) and be in compliance with Section 3, Vehicles, of the 2015 SCCA® National Solo® Rules.

•Excluded: Chevrolet Corvette (1984-2015), Dodge/SRT Viper (all)

Body Allowances

•Body panels may be modified or replaced in the original standard locations.

•Rear seating may be removed or modified .If removed, seat bottom area
must be covered; seat back area must be covered with a panel.

•Interior panels (door panels, kick panels, etc.) may be replaced and must cover any opening(s) the original panel(s) concealed. A single panel may only be replaced by another single panel.

•Dash may be modifed or replaced, but must be complete and cover the original area.

•Headliner may be replaced or removed.

•Exposed metal interior surfaces must be covered, painted, and/or coated. (No “race car” interiors, please.)

•Fuel tank/cell may be modified or replaced and must be separated from the driver/passengers as originally manufactured or by a metal panel/ bulkhead. Fuel must not vent into the driver/passenger compartment directly or indirectly.

•Front splitter, air dam, and/or spoiler may be added below the bumper, but must not extend past the perimeter of the body.

•Rear spoiler may be added, but may extend no more than 8” from the original body nor past the perimeter of the body. No rear wings may be added except OE or equivalent.

Wheel and Tire Allowances

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

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

Body Electrical System Allowances

•Components and wiring are unrestricted.

Brake System Allowances

•Components, lines, and hoses are unrestricted.

Suspension and Steering Allowances

•Components and method of attachment are unrestricted.

Engine and Drive Train Allowances

•Components (internal and external) are unrestricted.

Supplemental Classes, as used at SCCA® National Solo® events:

CAM-T (Traditional) (body styles originating from 1954-72)

•Examples: Camaro (-1981), Mustang (-1973), Barracuda (-1974)

•Seating originally for 4 or more adults

•Wheelbase, minimum (inches) .................................................. ................................108

•Weight, minimum (lbs.) .................................................. ............................................3000

•Interior floor covering(s) may be replaced, but not removed.

CAM-C (Contemporary) (body styles originating from 1978-on)

•Included: Pontiac GTO (2004-06), Pontiac G8 (2008-09), Chevrolet SS (2014-15)

•Seating originally for 4 or more adults

•Wheelbase, minimum (inches) .................................................. ................................100

•Weight, minimum (lbs.) .................................................. ............................................3000

•Interior floor covering(s) may be replaced, but not removed.

CAM-S (Sports) (minimum wheelbase - 90”)

•Seating originally for 2 or more adults

•Wheelbase, minimum (inches) .................................................. ...................................90

•Weight, minimum (lbs.) .................................................. ............................................2600

•Weight, minimum (lbs.) w/ Lexan® windshield .............................................2750

Note: In 2016, OE or equivalent windshields will be required in keeping with CAM philosophy of “no race cars.”

•Side windows may be replaced with Lexan® or equivalent and operating mechanism may be removed or changed.

•Interior floor covering may be removed

[nokones]

I'm curious on why they will not allow the C4 Corvettes when they allow the C3 Corvettes. I would like to know what is the difference when the performance rules are the same and both generation Corvettes have IRS. It does not make sense to me. I would like to know what was the thinking behind this decision.

[IndyDave]

I'm curious on why they will not allow the C4 Corvettes when they allow the C3 Corvettes. I would like to know what is the difference when the performance rules are the same and both generation Corvettes have IRS. It does not make sense to me. I would like to know what was the thinking behind this decision.

Everything from a C-5 Corvette bolts under a C-4 so a C-4 effectively becomes a C-5. IRS had nothing to do with the decision.

[Gratefuldiver]

Now if they only enforce it. It bugged the **** out of me that 1990+ Camaros and Mustangs where allowed to compete in the CAM class. Im sorry, its not a muscle car. Its not even about me winning, Eric's Camaro is the fastest CAM car in STL, it was just the idea of it.

[SSLance]

1990+ Camaros and Mustangs are legal in the new CAM-C class. Eric's Camaro would run in CAM-T.

I would have preferred that the SCCA pit like modified CAM cars against like modified CAM cars regardless of make, model, or year...but they chose this route instead. I guess they'd rather see the older body styles race against the older body styles regardless of mods, and the newer cars against the newer.

I'll still race with the SCCA and will still have tons of fun. I hope the CAM class continues to grow, they really do put on a great show out on the course.

[Gratefuldiver]

Right, I was saying Eric's car was what I would have considered a CAM car. Im glad they broke up the CAM classes, but I see where your going with mods to mods and stock to stock regardless of year. Maybe a CAM T Mod class and a CAM T Stock class will come at a bigger events. I still new to all this and just like going out and running the heck out of my car vs going to car shows like I did in that past

[Z06vet]

My local SCCA did not run the CAM class at all last year because they said they had no PAX for it. I really dont care what class they put me in or who else is in it. I just want the seat time. Its close by, inexpensive, and well run. It would be cool to have the class and be able to run in it. Curious to see what happens this year

[dontlifttoshift]

There is a pax for all of the CAM classes this year.

[nokones]

Everything from a C-5 Corvette bolts under a C-4 so a C-4 effectively becomes a C-5. IRS had nothing to do with the decision.


Well, that is not true. So, what was the "real" reason why the C4 and newer Corvettes were excluded? What exactly do you mean everything from a C5 bolts under a C4. Please feel free to explain to me what will bolt on the C4 Corvette from the C5 with the exception of the front brake calipers, and the fact that would be of an performance dominating factor over other vehicles in the class. The trans and rear diff unit is different and so are the suspension attachment points. The rules allow you to drop in a LS engine with any amount of horsepower. You can use any shock or spring rate, you can modify any suspension component and the method of attachment is unrestricted. You can also put aftermarket 6 piston calipers on your car in accordance with the rules. Essentially, all modifications are free so, what is benefit by eliminating the Corvettes, especially the C4 Corvettes, have to do with trying to keep the usual SCCA thinking of leveling the playing field the same? The leveling of the playing field should be left/decided by the competitor and the modifications that he or she do to their cars in order to be competitive. The decision should not be with a regulatory committee.

According to the rules, all the performance enhancements and modifications that can be done to a C4 or newer Corvette can be done to a C3 or older Corvette and the C3 and older Corvettes are still eligible to compete in CAM. Please explain to me what would the performance difference would be in this case.

Honestly, a C4 owner would not take anything off of a C5 Corvette if theyw ant to be competitive in CAM. A C4 can be competitive with a just about any available aftermarket C4 performance product like what the Classic cars are doing with the front and rear suspension modifications that are offered by companies that specialize in these upgrades like Detroit Speed Engineering and Ridetechs of the performance speciality market.

What about the fact that you can bolt a C4 suspension under a C2 Corvette? Does that make a C2 a C4? No, it does not. It is still a C2 with a better suspension. That is what the Pro-Touring rules are all about, no performance rules, just simple rules that it has to be an american production car with body panels and a finish interior with registration and insurance in order to be a legal road worth vehicle. If you look at all of the performance and modification rules, they simply say, "Are Unrestructed".

If you read from the beginning of the Proposed CAM rule starting where it says, "rationale", in part it states, "The purpose of CAM is to attract automobile enthusiasts who are currently interested and/or participating in Goodguys®, Ultimate Street Car Association®, or other similar events", I believe the SEB missed the point in attracting all of these enthusiasts. They have excluded some of theses enthusiasts by eliminating the C4 and newer Corvettes and the Vipers. In my opinion, the Vipers are not of any advantage over other high horse power car with a very good suspension on an autocross course and the SEB still excluded the Viper from CAM. I have yet to find where the Viper has won a National Solo Championship even with Gary Thomason driving a Viper. If Gary Thomason can't make it happen, I believe it would be very tough for the Danny Popp and Dan Livezy's of the world to make it happen and that is probably why they do not compete in a Viper. I say, let them compete, bring them on, I like beating Vipers.

I am sure curious why anyone would think that the C4 Corvettes would be a dominate car over any other car in this category?

[SSLance]

The newer Corvettes already have a SCCA class where they are competitive, several of them in fact depending on prep level.

The CAM classes were originally started to give those American cars that did not have any other SCCA classes available a class that they could run in competitively.

[nokones]

The newer Corvettes already have a SCCA class where they are competitive, several of them in fact depending on prep level.

The CAM classes were originally started to give those American cars that did not have any other SCCA classes available a class that they could run in competitively.

And what class would that be? Maybe in the Stock class a Corvette would be competitive but, we are not talking about stock Corvettes. BSP? That won't work. SSM? Nope, not this class either, not against the RX7 TTs and the Lotus The Corvette is too heavy to be competitive against the EVOs and RX7 TTs. That is why they went away, back in the 90s. Look what happened in SS back in the 90s when they merged the RX7 TTs from AS to SS. The entire class of 54 Corvettes stop coming to the National Championships and the class comprise of only about 12-13 RX7 tts. "AS" was a competitive class by itself with the 12-13 RX7 TTs and the 12-13 RX7 TTs drove away the 54 Corvettes from SS. That was not a very bright idea on the SEB.

When I was the Street Prepared Advisory Group Chairperson in the 90s, I was successful in reclassing the C4 Corvettes from ASP to BSP. The BSP Class was a very competitive class between the C2, C3, and C4 Corvettes at the time. After my tenure of being the Chairperson, they reclassed one of the all-wheel drive non-american cars into BSP. Again that drove away all the Corvettes. Again. that was not a very bright idea again.

Believe me, I am not for an all inclusive car class but, there is no way that a heavy Corvette and can equally compete against a very light car with high horsepower to weight ratio and better braking. In the CAM Class, those factors kinda go away when the performance enhancement modification rules are unrestricted and the fact that it has to be an american car.

I believe the SEB was premature in excluding the 1984 and newer Corvettes and Vipers from the CAM category without any hard facts and data as being a dominant car in the CAM – Contemporary sub-class. My suggestion is allow the 1984 and newer Corvettes and the Vipers compete in CAM until there are the facts and data dictate otherwise that they should be excluded. Maybe they should add a fourth CAM sub-class just for the 1984 and newer Corvettes and the Vipers and see what happens. Maybe the number of competitors may be low and may be they won't be low. I doubt that the numbers for the CAM-S will be overwhelming with Cobras. I can see a couple of Cobras but, not a lot of them will compete in that sub-class.

The CAM rules allow the late model GTOs and the Chevrolet SS compete so it can't be the fact that newer cars do not belong in CAM.

Over time the Corvette enthusiasts went elsewhere to run their cars in various events with the Corvette Councils and clubs. The various Corvette Councils and Clubs rules were a lot more liberal in performance enhancements than the SCCA rules allowed. Those enhancements and modifications are well outside the scope of the not only the Stock and Street Prepared Category rules, even the Super Street Modified rules may be questionable. The CAM rules that were adopted from the Good Guys and Ultimate Street Car Association rules are a perfect set of rules that will fit the modifications that were performed by the Corvette enthusiasts. The SCCA CAM Class gives those Corvette a place to compete just like the organizations has allowed. Why should the SCCA exclude them?

[Gratefuldiver]

[QUOTE=SSLance;1107265]
The CAM rules allow the late model GTOs and the Chevrolet SS compete so it can't be the fact that newer cars do not belong in CAM.


Classic=25-30 years old

[IndyDave]

Kenny,

I'll admit my knowledge of Corvettes is limited, what I stated about them above is what I was told when I questioned why the C-4 got put on the exclusions list. As for the C-5 and newer Corvettes in CAM, what was learned from last year was that when those cars were allowed in a Region's CAM class, participation went down in the class. There are other places for Corvettes to play. My understanding is that most of the Corvettes that were being complained about would have easily fit in A Street and Corvettes do well there. It was a constant complaint from many competing in CAM this past year whether there were those Corvettes competing in their CAM class or not. If you want to voice your complaint the best folks to talk to are Howard Duncan, or Raleigh Boreen. They are the decision makers for CAM. They will listen. They're just trying to do what's best for the growth of CAM.

[dontlifttoshift]

sigh.......

Do you have a C4? Do you know someone who does? You were on the AC, you know the process, write a letter to Raleigh or Howard and let them know how you feel.

I wasn't there, but I am guessing that C4 vettes disappeared when the C5 presented itself as a _much_ better car in every single way.

[IndyDave]

[QUOTE=nokones;1107274]

Classic=25-30 years old

Classic can have many meanings......... It's just a catchy name for the class. BTW: At the CAM Invitational the CAM/T cars had a lower index than the CAM/C cars which means the T cars were faster. In my own Region, one of the fastest cars in the class is a '77 Trans Am, contemporary cars are not superior, trust me. Yes they have anti-lock and traction control, but those things are designed to help idiots from killing themselves in an avoidance maneuver, not lower lap times. If you want to go fast in a new car you have to turn off or disable all that garbage.

[SSLance]

I think you have that backward Dave, the C cars had a lower index because Feighner brought his Fox body with wide tires on it and kicked the craps out of all of the rest of the C and T cars. The T cars got to leave the line a few tenths before the C cars...I know because Robbie Unser in his T Chevy II had a head start on me in my 1985 Monte Carlo.

This is what gets me...

None of these cars these classes are for are fast stock (except the Corvettes) and ALL of them can be made to be just as fast as the rest of them with the no restrictions mods allowed. I'm not sure why the T and C cars are separated at all, a better way to separate them and keep both sides competitive would be by front tire size...but that isn't the SCCA way.

[nokones]

[QUOTE=Gratefuldiver;1107280]

Classic can have many meanings......... It's just a catchy name for the class. BTW: At the CAM Invitational the CAM/T cars had a lower index than the CAM/C cars which means the T cars were faster. In my own Region, one of the fastest cars in the class is a '77 Trans Am, contemporary cars are not superior, trust me. Yes they have anti-lock and traction control, but those things are designed to help idiots from killing themselves in an avoidance maneuver, not lower lap times. If you want to go fast in a new car you have to turn off or disable all that garbage.

I totally agree with the classic definition 25-30 years and that is why I think I should be able to compete my Classic 1989 Corvette in CAM. According to most states regarding the law in regards vintage cars, the threshold is 25 years. I believe I am well within that definition with my 26 year old 1989 Corvette.

I don't care which sub-class I am in. I just want to compete in the class and I don't care if my car would be an underdog because I will make it a competitive car for the sub-class.

[nokones]

I think you have that backward Dave, the C cars had a lower index because Feighner brought his Fox body with wide tires on it and kicked the craps out of all of the rest of the C and T cars. The T cars got to leave the line a few tenths before the C cars...I know because Robbie Unser in his T Chevy II had a head start on me in my 1985 Monte Carlo.

This is what gets me...

None of these cars these classes are for are fast stock (except the Corvettes) and ALL of them can be made to be just as fast as the rest of them with the no restrictions mods allowed. I'm not sure why the T and C cars are separated at all, a better way to separate them and keep both sides competitive would be by front tire size...but that isn't the SCCA way.

But, we are not talking stock in Pro-Touring. When you have unlimited rules that makes it a pretty level playing field to me. That allows you to put all the go-fast parts you want on your car for whatever level you want to compete in.

Now, be careful. You're asking for a performance rule to limit a performance enhancement, if you want to limit tire sizes. That is not in the spirit of Pro-Touring. Remember, there are no performance rules in Pro-Touring. That is what Pro-Touring is all about, you can do whatever mods you want without limitation of any rules.

[nokones]

sigh.......

Do you have a C4? Do you know someone who does? You were on the AC, you know the process, write a letter to Raleigh or Howard and let them know how you feel.

I wasn't there, but I am guessing that C4 vettes disappeared when the C5 presented itself as a _much_ better car in every single way.

Yes I do have a C4 Corvette. I know a gazillion people who have a C4 Corvette. Yes, I know the process. I did write a letter back in October. They obviously didn't consider my input regarding the C4 Corvette. Actually, the process is you don't write a letter to Howard or anyone when it is in regards to the rules, you write it to the Solo Events Board (SEB). Yes, I wrote another letter. It was mailed out this afternoon.

The C4 Corvettes disappeared way before the C5 Corvettes were ever made public. The C4s disappeared because the SEB merged the RX7 TTs in with the C4 class. in stock trim, the C5 Corvette is a much better car because of more horsepower, better braking, and it is a little lighter in weight than the C4 Corvette. The suspension on the C5 may look good on paper but not in action than the C4 Corvette.

[SSLance]

Kenny, would you be happy if the C4 was allowed to run in CAM-S?

To me, no way should the C4 or any Corvette for that matter be allowed to compete against the rest of the front heavy Muscle cars in T and C. S is the only place for them in this configuration.

[nokones]

Kenny, would you be happy if the C4 was allowed to run in CAM-S?

To me, no way should the C4 or any Corvette for that matter be allowed to compete against the rest of the front heavy Muscle cars in T and C. S is the only place for them in this configuration.

Sure, I don't mind running with Bruce and Scott in S. Let's give that a try and see how things compare over time and adjust from there. You never know, the CAM sub-classes could be reconfigured and classed by weight or be put into time brackets in the future. We got to start somewhere and by allowing all american made cars to compete you will have the data to make a better decision for the entire program and everyone benefits and no one is left out.

I guess the S sub-class would be a better fit for the Corvettes. I think they should allow all the Corvettes and Vipers compete in S. They all are two-seater's cars anyways. This suggestion would help to make the sub-class better represented in numbers of competitors and make it a lot more fun with more competing in the sub-class.

I have to agree if the weight between the cars are significantly different that could cause a performance disadvantage for the heavier cars. That is not what I want to see happen. There are always ways to make it fair for everyone if everyone can be included in some means.

I'm sure Bruce and Scott would welcome the competition rather than running by themselves in the sub-class.

[GrabberGT]

Since we're asking for rule changes... My Mav is 103" wheelbase, a 4-seater, and 3100 Lbs. Please dont me make compete with the vettes and cobras. What is the wheelbase rule meant to keep out of CAM-C. What pre-72 3000+ lb 4-seater would be competitive against the CAM-S class no matter the wheelbase?

[Yelcamino]

Eligible Vehicles

•Vehicle must be either a domestic automobile of front-engine/RWD configuration or a “pick-up” truck.


Supplemental Classes, as used at SCCA® National Solo® events:

CAM-T (Traditional) (body styles originating from 1954-72)

•Examples: Camaro (-1981), Mustang (-1973), Barracuda (-1974)

•Seating originally for 4 or more adults

•Wheelbase, minimum (inches) .................................................. .............................108

•Weight, minimum (lbs.) .................................................. .....................................3000

•Interior floor covering(s) may be replaced, but not removed.

CAM-C (Contemporary) (body styles originating from 1978-on)

•Included: Pontiac GTO (2004-06), Pontiac G8 (2008-09), Chevrolet SS (2014-15)

•Seating originally for 4 or more adults

•Wheelbase, minimum (inches) .................................................. .............................100

•Weight, minimum (lbs.) .................................................. .....................................3000

•Interior floor covering(s) may be replaced, but not removed.

CAM-S (Sports) (minimum wheelbase - 90”)

•Seating originally for 2 or more adults

•Wheelbase, minimum (inches) .................................................. ................................90

•Weight, minimum (lbs.) .................................................. ......................................2600

•Interior floor covering may be removed


Is it safe to assume "pick-up truck" includes El Caminos and Rancheros?

Speaking of pick-up trucks, El Caminos and Rancheros, since they are factory 2-seaters, does that mean they have to run in CAM-S?

[SSLance]

Since we're asking for rule changes... My Mav is 103" wheelbase, a 4-seater, and 3100 Lbs. Please dont me make compete with the vettes and cobras. What is the wheelbase rule meant to keep out of CAM-C. What pre-72 3000+ lb 4-seater would be competitive against the CAM-S class no matter the wheelbase?

Oh man, I didn't realize that you'd get caught up in the fray... I don't understand that either.

[Dr. Evil]

Bunch of nonsense as usual with the rules and classes. I'm with Kenny on this one.

There is nothing from a C5 that I'd bolt on to a C4 for better performance except brakes or an LS based engine, and that's debatable. J55 brakes with GS calipers are comparable to C5 brakes and have a larger diameter rotor. Clamp force, rotor thickness, caliper distortion and availability of parts are all slightly better than C4 J55 brakes.

The C4 was made for 13 model years, there are thousands upon thousands of them out there for cheap. It'll accept all manner of engine combinations and can be a really fun car. Yeah, lets exclude those.

[IndyDave]

On the wheelbase in T: I'm personally a little disappointed with it. I suggested a minimum WB of 103" so cars like early Mopar A Bodies (106") and the Ford Maverick / Comet wouldn't have to compete in CAM/S. But some times things like this are the product of the sausage making that is creating a set of rules that have to satisfy multiple entities. The upside is that 1) Regions are being encouraged to offer CAM as a single class, the sub-classes being offered at National Tour events and any other SCCA "special events" that may develop for CAM. 2) the chances of anyone being severely mis-matched at a Regional Solo are slim. The chances of a Danny Popp or a Josh Leisenger showing up at a Regional event are extremely slim. Again, the best thing to do is contact Raleigh or Howard directly and express your opinion. Submitting the complaint through the normal SEB channels won't get you anywhere. SCCA is experimenting with a lot of new ideas and the officiating of CAM is one of those things.

[Cobra 498]

Sure, I don't mind running with Bruce and Scott in S. Let's give that a try and see how things compare over time and adjust from there. You never know, the CAM sub-classes could be reconfigured and classed by weight or be put into time brackets in the future. We got to start somewhere and by allowing all american made cars to compete you will have the data to make a better decision for the entire program and everyone benefits and no one is left out.

I guess the S sub-class would be a better fit for the Corvettes. I think they should allow all the Corvettes and Vipers compete in S. They all are two-seater's cars anyways. This suggestion would help to make the sub-class better represented in numbers of competitors and make it a lot more fun with more competing in the sub-class.

I have to agree if the weight between the cars are significantly different that could cause a performance disadvantage for the heavier cars. That is not what I want to see happen. There are always ways to make it fair for everyone if everyone can be included in some means.

I'm sure Bruce and Scott would welcome the competition rather than running by themselves in the sub-class.

We would welcome any Corvettes and Vipers in the class, more cars = better competition and more fun.

[73CPCAMARO]

The CAM-S class needs to be revised. The C-4 would be a great place for it to be. I can also see adding C5's and C6's and Vipers with ABS to have a higher weight limits.

[72BBSwinger]

I think Vettes,Cobras and Vipers need their own class period no matter what year. They are 2 seat Sport/Super cars, not musclecars. Even if some year Corvettes are slow, doesn't matter.

[nokones]

The CAM program is the beginning of a great program not only for the competitors but, also for the SCCA club. In my opinion, the CAM program could be easily ruined with unnecessary rules which will drive away the competitors to other organizations where essentially, there are no performance rules or other limiting factors that will keep a competitor from competing. There should be no reason why there can't be a place for everyone to run in CAM.

Since, the CAM program is new, there will be some growing pains as the program develops. In the meantime, lets have some fun and enjoy watching all the old muscle cars out competing on an autocross course. Personally, I think it is great.

[SSLance]

When I first started racing my car with the SCCA 3 years ago, I was stuck racing in Street Modified with AWD Evos and such... I worked hard at getting a regional class set up in our region that basically mimicked the Good Guys ruleset basically so that I didn't have to race my car against Evos anymore...because that was wrong. The next year the National CAM class was initiated and our Region went forward with one class for all CAM cars...because we didn't want to exclude anyone and make the class ruleset too complicated, but it was discussed that if someone came along with a late model Corvette and tried to run in our Region in CAM, they would be strongly encouraged not to.

We had a blast racing in that class this year...it felt great to show up at the track each event and know that our 3-4 regulars were all going to be within a second of each other and all of us were able to win multiple events. That was all we wanted...a place to race our cars against other competitive cars week in and week out. We had probably a dozen or so other cars run in CAM over the year, mostly first timers...and about half of them came back or another event or two after their initial event. And I know of others that are still getting their cars ready to run in CAM and plan on coming out with our Region next season.

IMHO the split into 3 CAM classes before Nationals was an attempt by the SCCA to get like kind (looking) CAM cars to run with like kind CAM cars and give the 2 seaters a place to run in CAM as well. In reality C and T cars are basically competitive with each other and S is a different ball game altogether. The problem I see with this is like when the Mavericks get caught up in the fray and get stuck in a class they can not be competitive in under most circumstances. A Maverick running against Cobras and Vettes is no better than a 1985 Monte Carlo running against AWD Evos. Perfect example of unintended consequences by over regulation...

I'd rather just see one CAM class of all of the 4 seat cars and let it be rather than this, even if it means I'll have to race against a Fox body that weighs 500 pounds less with 315s all the way around or against a 67 Camaro with 800 hp and 315s...that's still better than racing against Evos.

Chris, the good news is the individual Regions are able to set their CAM classes up however they chose. If I was you, I'd go to the next SAC (Solo Advisory committee) meeting for your Region and make your case for your Region to set a CAM class up that is fair for you to run in. Not everyone will agree, and depending on your committee you may have some brushback, I know I did when I approached our committee with my idea a couple of years ago. I made my case though and they let the class in. No reason you can't do the same. Common sense is on your side.

[DesertFox]

I'd rather just see one CAM class of all of the 4 seat cars and let it be rather than this, even if it means I'll have to race against a Fox body that weighs 500 pounds less with 315s all the way around or against a 67 Camaro with 800 hp and 315s.


On a similar note, instead of making any new rules, Id like to see the 3000 pound rule enforced... at least at Nationals (and while we're at it... how about staying in impound until you're released).
This whole thread reminded me why I am 100% burned out with SCCA.

[nokones]

Is it safe to assume "pick-up truck" includes El Caminos and Rancheros?

Speaking of pick-up trucks, El Caminos and Rancheros, since they are factory 2-seaters, does that mean they have to run in CAM-S?

I hope that they (SCCA) don't make that mistake in putting the El Camino's and The Rancheros in S because the number of seating positions. They are trucks not sport cars, at least by definition of the vehicle code.

[nokones]

Dr. Evil's signature block was very funny. I liked it.

[nokones]

I have been giving this subject some thought and I think I'll end up writing another letter to the SCCA. I am going to start a new discussion on this subject with the title of "SCCA CAM-S Class".

[SicMonte]

So would a 88 Monte Carlo SS be in the CAM-C class?

[nokones]

So would a 88 Monte Carlo SS be in the CAM-C class?

Yes you would unless you shrink your wheelbase to 99 inches or less or put your car on a diet with a weight of 2999 pounds or less.

[rjsolo]

... Maybe they should add a fourth CAM sub-class just for the 1984 and newer Corvettes and the Vipers and see what happens. Maybe the number of competitors may be low and may be they won't be low. I doubt that the numbers for the CAM-S will be overwhelming with Cobras. I can see a couple of Cobras but, not a lot of them will compete in that sub-class...



Hi Kenny,

I agree a modern CAM-S class with C4-C7 and Vipers would more cars to play, much like how the ST classes were expanded. Also add the aluminum body, short wheel base Cobra, and open wheel hotrods to the class.

In SS, the RX-7 was a lot more of a closer match in performance to the C4, than the C4 is to a C3. A C4 in CAM-S would do what the Zo6 did to SS when it was included.

Rick

[rjsolo]

double post :(

[LkBumm]

SCCA should go back to basics.

Weight: over 3000 lbs
under 3000 lbs


Wheel base-- over ?
under ?

Treadwear-- over 200 tw

As the rules are now, the hot setup will be a cobra kit car weighing in at the limit.
You can't expect anything with a 500 lb weight penalty to be competitive

KEEP IT SIMPLE

[nokones]

I agree. SCCA should mirror the USCA or Good Guys classes and rules if they want this program to be successful. I understand why classes should have a minimum weight requirement but why should there be a minimum wheelbase requirement for a class. Another fact is SCCA wants to exclude the certain vehicles entirely from the CAM program. You would think that just make a class for those excluded vehicles would be in the best interest of everyone. Just doesn't make sense. Way too many rules

[SSLance]

Lets take this discussion back over here...

First Dave mentions that the top times in CAM-C, CAM-T, and CAM-S were all very similar at the CAM East event. This mimics the results from the Pro-Solo Invitational at Lincoln last fall, the first event for the 3 split classes. To me, this means there really is no reason to split the classes up, certainly no reason to split up CAM-C and CAM-T. The top times are all the same, so why split them up into separate classes?

Second, 5 of the top 15 drivers in CAM-C at CAM East were in basically FS cars.

The Classic American Muscle class was created to give older hot rods that had to be heavily prepped to be fast a place to run competitively in the SCCA instead of making them run in SM or CP where they fit, but were not competitive, yet here we show a third of the top drivers in CAM-C at the CAM Challenge East were in lightly prepped cars that are already competitive in their own FS class...

This is what I have the biggest problem with in the current setup. I have no problem racing my car against the heaviest prepped cars currently in CAM-T or CAM-C, because I know what those owners had to do to their cars to make them fast and I respect it. I have a problem racing my car that I had to do so much to to make it fast against newer cars driven off the showroom floor straight to the race course.

The newly talked about pony car classes may be the answer to get those new lightly prepped cars out of CAM, I'm just not sure exactly how that will be accomplished.

To be clear, I don't want anyone excluded from running, I hope that everyone can find a fair place to race in the SCCA. I just want the class that we created for heavily prepped street cars to run in together to remain for heavily prepped street cars that weren't supposed to be fast off the showroom floor. That was the whole reason for this class in the first place.

[IndyDave]

Lets take this discussion back over here...

First Dave mentions that the top times in CAM-C, CAM-T, and CAM-S were all very similar at the CAM East event. This mimics the results from the Pro-Solo Invitational at Lincoln last fall, the first event for the 3 split classes. To me, this means there really is no reason to split the classes up, certainly no reason to split up CAM-C and CAM-T. The top times are all the same, so why split them up into separate classes?

The decision to make CAM a category with 3 classes was due to a large response from primarily competitors of older cars thinking they could not compete with late model cars. In all the research leading up to the creation of CAM, looking at Goodguy's and Optima autocross results initially led us to believe a single class was sufficient. It became a category after trying the concept with the Inaugural running of the CAM Challenge.


Second, 5 of the top 15 drivers in CAM-C at CAM East were in basically FS cars.

True. Ask any seasoned autocrosser and they will tell you that speed in the sport is 80% driver, 20% car. Street tires also level the field very well.


The Classic American Muscle class was created to give older hot rods that had to be heavily prepped to be fast a place to run competitively in the SCCA instead of making t[hem run in SM or CP where they fit, but were not competitive, yet here we show a third of the top drivers in CAM-C at the CAM Challenge East were in lightly prepped cars that are already competitive in their own FS class...

Partially incorrect. CAM was created to offer a class (now category) where enthusiasts with American made cars with classic American muscle car layouts that are modified to the owner's tastes instead of a set of rules. While the pro-touring world is a large focus point for CAM, late model muscle cars were always part of the equation. This philosophy is in line with what Goodguy's and Optima and countless others offer. Yes Goodguy's has a 1972 M/Y cutoff but those shows also offer "All American Sundays" and several "All American" events each year that allow late model muscle cars and supercars to compete. CAM exists precisely because folks were showing up in modified street cars and being put in classes where they had no hope because they were driving street cars on street tires. Some really good autocrossers in well prepared SCCA Street class cars showed up and did well. It happens. Again, the 80%/20% rule applies.


This is what I have the biggest problem with in the current setup. I have no problem racing my car against the heaviest prepped cars currently in CAM-T or CAM-C, because I know what those owners had to do to their cars to make them fast and I respect it. I have a problem racing my car that I had to do so much to to make it fast against newer cars driven off the showroom floor straight to the race course.

First, a car prepared to SCCA Street class rules is NOT as it came from the factory. You are allowed to change the exhaust cat-back, change the shocks, change sway bars (one, not both) and the people who are serious players in Street do a huge amount of research on how to order the cars in the first place. The cars they start with are not dealer inventory units. What do you propose? That cars allowed in CAM must be prepared in excess of Street rules? I proposed it back when CAM went from a class to a category and it went nowhere. Would that be good for CAM? How would that affect CAM at the local level?

Lance, a bunch of us got our asses handed to us by some VERY good drivers in a wide array of modified cars. My car driven by two people who are considered GOOD drivers locally placed right behind you and I can't say I could have done any better if I were behind the wheel and many consider me to be a very good driver locally. When you have the likes of Strano, the Merideths, and the Feigners show up at any SCCA National event, they're a threat to win no matter what they're driving. I'll go so far as to say if Strano was driving either of our cars, he still would have wound up on the podium, probably right where he finished anyway.


The newly talked about pony car classes may be the answer to get those new lightly prepped cars out of CAM, I'm just not sure exactly how that will be accomplished.

What it will do on the National level is give people with properly modified late model pony cars a stage to go for a National Solo Championship. I don't see how that will affect CAM. A few might jump ship, but most CAM folk seem to care less about an SCCA Solo National championship.


To be clear, I don't want anyone excluded from running, I hope that everyone can find a fair place to race in
the SCCA. I just want the class that we created for heavily prepped street cars to run in together to remain for heavily prepped street cars that weren't supposed to be fast off the showroom floor. That was the whole reason for this class in the first place.

Again, CAM was created as a place for people who have modified muscle cars and hot rods to their personal tastes and budget to compete. Do you really want to start defining what that is anymore than we have? Do you really want to tell people with lightly modified cars they can't compete in CAM? How does that look? We now need to protect the folks in highly modified cars from folks in Street category cars? Really?

CAM is about having fun. We are already protecting it from the normal rules and officiating process to keep it fun, keep it simple, keep it open. That's why it's not a National Championship category and won't be for the foreseeable future. CAM is primarily a regional class, the Challenges and the Invitational are meant to be fun get togethers for folks who run CAM or want to run in a fun, low pressure atmosphere. CAM East was a BLAST. It's about the cars and the people who enjoy being around them. Isn't that what hot rodding and the whole PT movement is about? I think we already have too many restrictions on what cars can and cannot compete. More restrictions leads to what you see in the other classes and categories in SCCA Solo.

I'll end with question. What do others think? Do you want SCCA to exclude cars prepped as Street category cars from competing in CAM?

[GrabberGT]

I'll end with question. What do others think? Do you want SCCA to exclude cars prepped as Street category cars from competing in CAM?

Like I mentioned in the other thread, Give the modern cars their own MAM Class as Modern American Muscle. I do not personally see a problem with Street category cars as the essence of ProTouring is to take an old car and bring it up to the level of the Newer Street cars. I hear it all the time, "My X brand car drives and handles as good as or better than a Mustang, Camaro, Vette... whatever". After a local events, I typically go over the final times and compare my times to those anyway just to see how I stack up.

I like the structure as it is (not the rules ie Maverick in CAM-S). Im not running against newer cars unless I want to. I do think the newer street vettes, Vipers... need to be included. They can run in CAM-S with the Cobras and underweight CAM cars.

[hotrodalex]

Sounds like the issue is just the year cutoff between T and C.

[SSninja]

Agree with the "MAM" idea.

It's a bit odd having "Still smells like new" vehicles in a class called "Classic American Muscle". That said, if it weren't for those cars the CAM Challenge East event would have been half the size, so that does need to be taken into account.

I'd say simplify the classes:

AM-C (American Muscle Classic) 25 years or older, rolling window. That fits the definition of a classic car as most people understand it, and keeps all of the old iron together. Allow older Corvettes to play as well.

AM-M (American Muscle Modern): Any RWD domestic vehicle newer than 25 years

AM-U (American Muscle Unlimited): You have a tube chassis car that weighs under 3000 lbs and vaguely resembles a Camaro? Come on down!


Those three classes would make me happy. No BS about wheelbases, how old the suspension design is, etc. If the car has lasted 25 years and is still able to be driven like you stole it, bring it on down. AM-M cars can graduate to AM-C once their cars are old enough, as by the time they are 25+ they'll be just as ragged as the junk that I drive.

[Tomswheels]

CAM is about having fun. We are already protecting it from the normal rules and officiating process to keep it fun, keep it simple, keep it open. That's why it's not a National Championship category and won't be for the foreseeable future. CAM is primarily a regional class, the Challenges and the Invitational are meant to be fun get togethers for folks who run CAM or want to run in a fun, low pressure atmosphere. CAM East was a BLAST. It's about the cars and the people who enjoy being around them. Isn't that what hot rodding and the whole PT movement is about? I think we already have too many restrictions on what cars can and cannot compete. More restrictions leads to what you see in the other classes and categories in SCCA Solo.

I'll end with question. What do others think? Do you want SCCA to exclude cars prepped as Street category cars from competing in CAM?

First off Dave I want to commend you for all the work you've done getting CAM up and running. I have had a great time in the San Diego SCCA region this year racing with 8-14 other CAM-T drivers every event and It has been very competitive. I also did the SCCA tour event here in San Diego and the CAM West event at Crows landing, and will be at the National tour in Lincoln. My 2 cents for whatever it's worth: I think CAM-T is great as is, however I would lower the minimum wheelbase to let the Mavericks in. It would also be nice for the early- mid 80s non-pony cars like Lances Monte to be able to race CAM-T since they are based on old-school body on frame technology, unlike an 80's Mustang or Camaro. I personally like CAM-S as is, where else can you see a Mustang II take down a Cobra? I would change the name of CAM-C to ANYTHING else, half the new people who show up to race their old muscle car put CAM-C on it by mistake because they think the C is for "Classic". MM for "Modern Muscle" or CAM-M for CAM "Modern", anything that is more intuitive than "contemporary". We have sporadic attendance in our CAM-C because the cars in CAM-C do overlap with those in FS and ESP. In our region, those 3 classes (FS,ESP,CAM-C) added together would average about the same number of cars we have in CAM-T.

[nokones]

SS Ninja has a couple of good points. If agree with doing away with the wheelbase requirement. I'm not to keen on the Tube Chassis allowance. I think only production chassis with an OEM VIN plate should be a mandatory requirement. As I mentioned several times, nothing should be excluded. Let everything play and sort it out as necessary.

I also feel, that the CAM classes should be recognized just like other national solo classes and not as a supplemental class.

[Tomswheels]

SS Ninja has a couple of good points. If agree with doing away with the wheelbase requirement. I'm not to keen on the Tube Chassis allowance. I think only production chassis with an OEM VIN plate should be a mandatory requirement. As I mentioned several times, nothing should be excluded. Let everything play and sort it out as necessary.

I also feel, that the CAM classes should be recognized just like other national solo classes and not as a supplemental class.

Kenny you followed the 2 sentences you wrote saying tube frames should be excluded with the sentence "nothing should be excluded, let everyone play". How about "nothing should be excluded except cars that could beat my C4"...

[nokones]

SS Ninja has a couple of good points. If agree with doing away with the wheelbase requirement. I'm not to keen on the Tube Chassis allowance. I think only production chassis with an OEM VIN plate should be a mandatory requirement. As I mentioned several times, nothing should be excluded. Let everything play and sort it out as necessary.

I also feel, that the CAM classes should be recognized just like other national solo classes and not as a supplemental class.

Kenny you followed the 2 sentences you wrote saying tube frames should be excluded with the sentence "nothing should be excluded, let everyone play". How about "nothing should be excluded except cars that could beat my C4"...

Hi Tom. I don't think I said that Tube frame chassis should be excluded. I think I said, " I'm not keen on the Tube Chassis allowance." Yes, I did say nothing should be excluded. Anyways, I believe somewhere in the CAM rules, it had to be a American production car with an OEM VIN plate. I believe that means no kit cars or Tube chassis.

[Schubitzky]

I've only competed at the regional level so my opinion may not work nationally, however, I like the -T and -C cars running together. In the Susquehanna region, they are separated. It's such a small region that sometimes you'll have one or two guys running T and one or two running C and it just isn't as fun running in a small class. It's also frustrating that I run in T with my '81 Camaro and a guy with a '78 Malibu is in C. It would work better at least locally for the health of the class for everyone to run together. 9 times out of 10 the T cars are quicker anyway. Of course we have guys in ESP and CP that could throw on a set of street tires and mop the floor with us, but they don't do it, maybe that would be a problem at the national level.

In the DC region, they class CAM all together. I like this much better. We get 8 to 10 cars consistently and most are competitive with each other. Again, a lot of times the T cars are quicker. I'm in a points battle right now with a 3rd gen Camaro and its so much more fun to have direct competition and it wouldn't happen if the class was segregated. It's the same deal there with the ESP cars or especially XP Cobras that could smoke us if they wanted to, but I feel like the majority of people want competition, not just to go trophy hunting. Strano regularly runs in both regions but have yet to see him run CAM.

[GrabberGT]

Anyways, I believe somewhere in the CAM rules, it had to be a American production car with an OEM VIN plate. I believe that means no kit cars or Tube chassis.

I think you are getting Optima/USCA rules mixed in here. They have the factory VIN plate rule. I understand what you mean about the tube chassis cars ie race cars with license plates. I cant think of ways to exclude them from CAM without also excluding those with aftermarket chassis like Roadster Shop Schwartz that also have full roll cages. I think the only thing we could do is define a level of street car that must be met like what USCA does. A street cat must have the following... Front 2 seats, floor covering, headliner, all windows present, licensed, inspected, and insured as a street car...

[FMK]

Although adding another class is not something I look forward too, I hope the STP class proposal goes through, that will take care of the "modern" cars and get them out of CAM-C and unlike CAM it will be a National Championship eligible class. Otherwise, be careful what you ask for, the beauty of CAM is the simple rules, thats why it is so hard for most SCCA Solo participants to grasp the concept, don't ruin a good thing.

[IndyDave]

I think you are getting Optima/USCA rules mixed in here. They have the factory VIN plate rule. I understand what you mean about the tube chassis cars ie race cars with license plates. I cant think of ways to exclude them from CAM without also excluding those with aftermarket chassis like Roadster Shop Schwartz that also have full roll cages. I think the only thing we could do is define a level of street car that must be met like what USCA does. A street cat must have the following... Front 2 seats, floor covering, headliner, all windows present, licensed, inspected, and insured as a street car...

From the current CAM rules for reference:

"- Vehicle must be either a domestic automobile of front‐engine/RWD
configuration or a “pick‐up” truck and considered “street legal” (lights,
wipers, etc.). Windshield and glass must be OE or equivalent except as
subsequently allowed. Interior and exterior must have a “finished” look.

- Must be licensed and insured."

Required in both CAM/T and CAM/C

"- Interior floor covering(s) may be replaced, but not removed."

[nokones]

Anyways, I believe somewhere in the CAM rules, it had to be a American production car with an OEM VIN plate. I believe that means no kit cars or Tube chassis.

I think you are getting Optima/USCA rules mixed in here. They have the factory VIN plate rule. I understand what you mean about the tube chassis cars ie race cars with license plates. I cant think of ways to exclude them from CAM without also excluding those with aftermarket chassis like Roadster Shop Schwartz that also have full roll cages. I think the only thing we could do is define a level of street car that must be met like what USCA does. A street cat must have the following... Front 2 seats, floor covering, headliner, all windows present, licensed, inspected, and insured as a street car...

Very good point and you're right, I was mixing the rules. Although, with Indy Dave quoting the current CAM rules for eligible cars, now the question is how you define domestic cars. Would that rule include a Tube chassis with a composite body of Monte Carlo like the former ASA car I use to have if I install an interior and all of the other stuff like wiper, etc. as required by the rules? It is hard to believe that anyone with a tube chassis would want to go to all that trouble just to race on street tires.

That was a good point made about a Schwartz chassis. I don't see a problem with someone using a Schwartz chassis because I believe that the car is being built in the spirit of the Pro-Touring rules and that meets the CAM rules.

[nokones]

Although adding another class is not something I look forward too, I hope the STP class proposal goes through, that will take care of the "modern" cars and get them out of CAM-C and unlike CAM it will be a National Championship eligible class. Otherwise, be careful what you ask for, the beauty of CAM is the simple rules, thats why it is so hard for most SCCA Solo participants to grasp the concept, don't ruin a good thing.

I am not up on the new proposal for this new "STP" class. Maybe the new class would be a great thing for the modern Muscle cars that have not made any performance modifications. If a modern Muscle car has been modified in accordance with the Pro-Touring rules well beyond the other SCCA prep rules, then I believe they should be allowed to compete in CAM, maybe in a separate class than the current CAM-C class. I believe the CAM program will develop in the right direction over time providing that SCCA does not exclude any cars and add unnecessary prep rules outside the philosophy of the Pro-Touring rules.

[IndyDave]

Very good point and you're right, I was mixing the rules. Although, with Indy Dave quoting the current CAM rules for eligible cars, now the question is how you define domestic cars. Would that rule include a Tube chassis with a composite body of Monte Carlo like the former ASA car I use to have if I install an interior and all of the other stuff like wiper, etc. as required by the rules? It is hard to believe that anyone with a tube chassis would want to go to all that trouble just to race on street tires.

That was a good point made about a Schwartz chassis. I don't see a problem with someone using a Schwartz chassis because I believe that the car is being built in the spirit of the Pro-Touring rules and that meets the CAM rules.

Again to quote the rules:

"Rationale: The purpose of CAM is to attract automobile enthusiasts who are
currently interested and/or participating in Goodguys®, Ultimate Street Car
Association®, Pro‐Touring or other similar events for “classic” vehicles
manufactured in North America by “The Big Three” based in the US (GM, Ford,
and Chrysler). These avid enthusiasts would largely be a new and different
group to join us as SCCA® members and participants. Regions are encouraged
to offer this program and encourage Classic American Muscle car enthusiasts to
join the fun at your SCCA Solo® events!"

Now one thing I missed until now in the current rules that was present in the 2014 rules was the statement that all entries must retain 85% of the car's original body material. It was meant to keep cars like Kenny's ASA Monte Carlo from being legal. I don't see it in the current rules and I must have read them a hundred times. I'll bring it up with Raleigh and crew. Personally, if someone wants to bring a street legalized stock car, modified, or some such creation, I'm for it just put them in CAM/S.

Back when we were developing the rules for CAM, tube chassis were a hot topic. There was a lot of back and forth. I remember Raleigh and I arguing about it at a Goodguy's event. I was on the side of allowing them precisely because of chassis like come from Schwartz and others. I took Raleigh through vendor row pointing out all the aftermarket chassis being offered. In the end, everyone agreed that if it's going to be an open class and that Goodguy's and others allow cars with "chassis" that it was in CAM's best interest to do so also.


A street cat must have the following... Front 2 seats, floor covering, headliner, all windows present, licensed, inspected, and insured as a street car...

CAM requires all those things also except for the headliner. The headliner may be deleted for rollbar / cage clearance. Further, in 2016 safety glass windshields will be required.

[KSScotton]

First post so take it easy on me guys ;-)

First off I am new to pro-touring and new to autocross, well just new to competitive auto-sports in general. I just started competing in CAM this year and I am one of those guys with the modern american muscle car ('13 mustang). I run in the KC region so I get the chance to compete against Lance on a pretty regular basis. I will use the word compete loosely because Lance and his Monte usually wax the floor with me and the mustang but I am having fun!

The thing that drew me to the CAM-C class was the simplicity of the rules. I really liked the fact that as I progress with my car I don't have to worry about whether or not that new sway bar or any other suspension changes are going to bump me out of the class. The freedom to make these changes on your car as you see fit is one of the best parts of the class. If you look at the results for our region I don't think I am alone in this thinking because CAM-C usually has one of the largest group of competitors of any of our KC region classes. Honestly I probably wouldn't have been bitten by the bug quite so hard if the CAM class wasn't part of our region.

Jeremy

[IndyDave]

To keep everyone on the same page, here are the 2015 CAM Rules:

APPENDIX B - CLASSIC AMERICAN MUSCLE (CAM)
Rationale: The purpose of CAM is to attract automobile enthusiasts who are
currently interested and/or participating in Goodguys®, Ultimate Street Car Association, Pro-Touring, or other similar events for “classic” vehicles manufactured in North America by “The Big Three” based in the US (GM, Ford,
and Chrysler). These avid enthusiasts would largely be a new and different
group to join us as SCCA®members and participants. Regions are encouraged
to offer this program and encourage Classic American Muscle car enthusiasts to
join the fun at your SCCA Solo®events!

Eligible Vehicles

-Vehicle must be either a domestic automobile of front‐engine/RWD
configuration or a “pick‐up” truck and considered “street legal” (lights
wipers, etc.).-Windshield and glass must be OE or equivalent except as
subsequently allowed.
-Interior and exterior must have a “finished” look.
-Must be licensed and insured.
-Vehicle must pass the mandatory safety inspection (tech) and be in
compliance with Section 3, Vehicles, of the 2015 SCCA® National Solo®
Rules.
-Excluded: Chevrolet Corvette (1984‐2015), Dodge/SRT Viper (all)

Body Allowances
- Body panels may be modified or replaced in the original standard locations.- Rear seating may be removed or modified. If removed, seat bottom area must
be covered; seat back area must be covered with a panel.
- Interior panels (door panels, kick panels, etc.) may be replaced and must cover
any opening(s) the original panel(s) concealed. A single panel may only be
replaced by another single panel.
- Dash may be modified or replaced, but must be complete and cover the original
area.
- Headliner may be replaced or removed.
- Exposed metal interior surfaces must be covered, painted, and/or coated. (No
“race car” interiors allowed, please.)
- Fuel tank/cell may be modified or replaced and must be separated from the
driver/passengers as originally manufactured or by a metal panel/bulkhead.
Fuel must not vent into the driver/passenger compartment directly or
indirectly.
- Front splitter, air dam, and/or spoiler may be added below the bumper, but
must not extend past the perimeter of the body.
- Rear spoiler may be added, but may extend no more than 8” from the original
body or past the perimeter of the body. No rear wings may be added except OE
or equivalent.


Wheel and Tire Allowances
- Any metallic wheels are allowed. Non‐metallic wheels
are also allowed but must be certified/approved from an appropriate, recognized standards
organization (e.g., FIA, SFI, SAE, TUV, etc.).
- Any DOT‐approved tires with a UTQG Treadwear Grade of 200 or higher are permitted.

Body Electrical System Allowances
- Components and wiring are unrestricted.


Brake System Allowances
- Components, lines, and hoses are unrestricted.

Suspension and Steering Allowances
- Components and method of attachment are unrestricted.

Engine and Drive Train Allowances
- Components (internal and external) are unrestricted.

Supplemental Classes, as used at SCCA® National Solo® events:

CAM/T (Traditional) (body styles originating from 1954‐72)
Examples: Camaro (1967‐81), Mustang (1964½‐73), Barracuda (1964‐74)
- Seating originally for 4 or more adults or pick‐up truck
- Wheelbase, minimum (inches) .................................................. .............................................. 108
- Weight, minimum (lbs.) .................................................. .................................................. ....... 3000
- Interior floor covering(s) may be replaced, but not removed.

 CAM/C (Contemporary) (body styles originating from 1978‐on)
Included: Pontiac GTO (2004‐06), Pontiac G8 (2008‐09), Chevrolet SS (2014‐15)
- Seating originally for 4 or more adults or pick‐up truck
- Wheelbase, minimum (inches).......................................... .................................................. .. 100
- Weight, minimum (lbs.) .................................................. .................................................. ..... 3000
- Interior floor covering(s) may be replaced, but not removed.

CAM/S (Sports)
- Seating originally for 2 or more adults
- Wheelbase, minimum (inches).......................................... .................................................. ..... 90
- Weight, minimum (lbs.) .................................................. .................................................. ..... 2350
- Weight, minimum (lbs.) w/ Lexan® windshield .................................................. ...... 2500
NOTE:In 2016, OE or equivalent windshields will be required in keeping with
CAM philosophy of “no race cars.”
- Side windows may be replaced with Lexan® or equivalent and operating
mechanism may be removed or changed.
- Interior floor covering may be removed.























































































































































































[IndyDave]

First post so take it easy on me guys ;-)

First off I am new to pro-touring and new to autocross, well just new to competitive auto-sports in general. I just started competing in CAM this year and I am one of those guys with the modern american muscle car ('13 mustang). I run in the KC region so I get the chance to compete against Lance on a pretty regular basis. I will use the word compete loosely because Lance and his Monte usually wax the floor with me and the mustang but I am having fun!

The thing that drew me to the CAM-C class was the simplicity of the rules. I really liked the fact that as I progress with my car I don't have to worry about whether or not that new sway bar or any other suspension changes are going to bump me out of the class. The freedom to make these changes on your car as you see fit is one of the best parts of the class. If you look at the results for our region I don't think I am alone in this thinking because CAM-C usually has one of the largest group of competitors of any of our KC region classes. Honestly I probably wouldn't have been bitten by the bug quite so hard if the CAM class wasn't part of our region.

Jeremy

YOU GET IT! YOU REALLY GET IT!! That's what we are hoping to do with CAM. Make it easy, make it fun!

[Ben@SpeedTech]

I run in Cam locally, my son and I are the only ones in the region with our 78 & 79 G body cars. It's fun just trying to get better times than the last round and trying to figure out this whole 80% driver thing. Nobody else to compare to though, so it is frustrating getting my tail handed to me by a stock Geo Metro with 8" wide slicks, but it is what it is and we both have fun every time we come out.

I attended my first pro-touring event last year and there were 19 old cars and like 30+ new Camaros and Mustangs. Watching everyone drive as much as I was able, there were obviously a good majority of novice drivers there. MOST of the late model cars, if they simply had 200 tread wear tires, smoked MOST the old cars, whether the late model guys knew what they were doing or not and no matter how modified the old cars were.

My car is a smaller version of a 77 A body with the same basic suspension design that was introduced in 1964, i.e. lousy geometry. I've done all I can with off the shelf "Pro Touring" parts (i.e. non race parts) to get my car to handle well. Even still, I have to ask why am I in a class that specifically targets independent rear suspension with front struts and 21st century technology engineering suspension?-- "(Contemporary) (body styles originating from 1978‐on) Included: Pontiac GTO (2004‐06), Pontiac G8 (2008‐09), Chevrolet SS (2014‐15)" There is an incredibly large gap in suspension thinking and engineering between 1978 and 2004. Did they even have computers and MIT in 1978?

I know I have a long way to go as far as learning to be the type of driver that could win no matter what car I drive. So I guess for the time being after all the work I've done to my archaic cave man like suspension to get it to handle well I guess I just have to wait till I have 10 or 12 full seasons of driving before I can place in the top 30, and beat a stock GTO or V6 2014 Camaro with BFG Rivals on it and a newbie driver? That isn't my definition of "fun", it sounds more like a long disappointing haul to get somewhere that by then even newer and better cars will be coming out from the factory and I still won't have a chance. That has the makings of the definition for some folks of "well gee I can't even get in the top 10 or 20 so why even bother." We can blow it off and say it's only for fun but c'mon, we all have some sort of competitive streak and would like to be rewarded at least once in a while for our efforts at some point, if not we'd be home sipping sparkling water and listening to Pavorotti rather than auto racing.

I personally love it either way and just race to race, but I think a lot of new Pro Touring guys with for example G bodies or 78-81 Camaros (no different than a 70-77) or 78-79 (no different than a 75-77) Novas or whatever, can potentially get discouraged because after three or four different SCCA races they place near the back of the group each time and so why did they even bother to invest $15,000 in suspension wheels and tires in the first place, don;t all the manufacturers of Pro Touring parts promise fast times with their suspensions? Does that make sense at all?

The other race group that has 1989 and older as a class makes sooooooooo much more sense considering many of the platforms used through the late 70s and 80s. I would MUCH rather race a 69 Camaro than a 2014 Camaro any day and think my car is way more suited to do so.

Just my personal thoughts and experience as a newbie/ novice/ non professional capability driver, take it as it is.

[Ben@SpeedTech]

How about this?

Cam T- Pre '89 Old school suspension- unequal A arm design.

Cam C- Anything that came from the factory with struts, from '82 (?) and up.

That would put for example the up to '81 Camaros and up to '88 G bodies racing similar earlier platforms, and the "new and improved and more technologically advanced" 82 + Camaros and Mustangs with struts, rack and pinion steering and Torque arms racing cars with similar newer style suspension. Sounds almost like a no brainer to me.

Or maybe add a class for the tweeners- Fox Mustangs and 3rd Gen Camaros. Call it CAM HB- CAM "Hair Band". This is only about having fun isn't it?

Then post Fox and the newer 4th gen Camaros and up which have even better engineering can all be Cam Contemporary.

[DesertFox]

Wow, once again reminded why I avoid the SCCA like the plague these days...
Suffice to say there's no rule set that will make everyone happy. Don't like the rules, find another sandbox ( or boxes as it were) to play in.

[IndyDave]

Wow, once again reminded why I avoid the SCCA like the plague these days...
Suffice to say there's no rule set that will make everyone happy. Don't like the rules, find another sandbox ( or boxes as it were) to play in.

You're right, can't please everybody. Sorry you feel that way about the SCCA. We're trying hard to be a more open place to have fun with cars. Sorry you don't see it that way.

[Rat Fink]

I have to echo what has already been said, leave the rules simple. I would not have even thought of attending an SCCA autocross event let alone joining the SCCA and participating had it not been for the CAM class. My car will never be competitive (118" wheelbase and 57" track width) but I'm having a ball! My driving improves every time, I make new friends every time, and I look really cool doing it EVERY TIME! If you want to really compete in what is basically an unlimited class, you might want to get used to some losses for a while. The spirit of the class is to have fun with your car instead of sitting in a lawn chair beside it. Most common comment about the Big Red Sled, "you really shouldn't be driving that car like that, it's too nice, you should just park it and look at it." Not gonna happen, it is waaay too much fun to drive and waaaaaay funner (is that a word?) to drive fast!

[nokones]

How about this?

Cam T- Pre '89 Old school suspension- unequal A arm design.

Cam C- Anything that came from the factory with struts, from '82 (?) and up.

That would put for example the up to '81 Camaros and up to '88 G bodies racing similar earlier platforms, and the "new and improved and more technologically advanced" 82 + Camaros and Mustangs with struts, rack and pinion steering and Torque arms racing cars with similar newer style suspension. Sounds almost like a no brainer to me.

Or maybe add a class for the tweeners- Fox Mustangs and 3rd Gen Camaros. Call it CAM HB- CAM "Hair Band". This is only about having fun isn't it?

Then post Fox and the newer 4th gen Camaros and up which have even better engineering can all be Cam Contemporary.

Ben, I don't think that rule would work very well. Where would my 90 1LE Camaro with a Detroit Speed Engineering front suspension sub frame that replaces the struts with upper and lower control arm run in? I can't run your proposed CAM-C because I no longer have my factory struts and CAM-T requires old school suspensions and the fact that my car is a 90 would also not meet that class requirement. It not easy, is it.

[SSLance]

Wow, once again reminded why I avoid the SCCA like the plague these days...
Suffice to say there's no rule set that will make everyone happy. Don't like the rules, find another sandbox ( or boxes as it were) to play in.

I have to tell you Valerie, CAM Challenge East was a blast and you would have enjoyed it a ton. The whole feel in the grid and the whole event really was much different than a typical SCCA event.

What you are seeing here is mostly some of us that are trying to tweak the CAM rules just a bit without upsetting the whole apple cart. There is a much larger discussion on the CAM East facebook page with mostly only those that were at the event participating and the discussion has been very positive and healthy. That is the future of this class and I'll be there with them as long as the powers that be don't "SCCA" up the rules. ;) which I don't think they will do.

[Tomswheels]

Valerie come by a San Diego Sunday SCCA event and let Rich Trujillo cook you up some Carne Asada off his Mustangs trunk lid. I guarantee it is like no SCCA experience you've had! Pics and results for the three classes from Sunday, you can see the CAM-C cars definately didn't dominate Sunday...

[nokones]

Hey Indy Dave, this discussion that you started has been fun reading. Do you have an ETA on when the "2016 SCCA CAM Rules" discussion will start. I'm anxious to see if I get to run in CAM next year.

[IndyDave]

That is the future of this class and I'll be there with them as long as the powers that be don't "SCCA" up the rules. ;) which I don't think they will do.

If the rules get SCCA'd up, I'm out (Look at my sig for what that means)

[IndyDave]

Hey Indy Dave, this discussion that you started has been fun reading. Do you have an ETA on when the "2016 SCCA CAM Rules" discussion will start. I'm anxious to see if I get to run in CAM next year.

The goal Raleigh has set is to announce the 2016 rules at the CAM Invitational. Note I said "goal".

[Ben@SpeedTech]

Ben, I don't think that rule would work very well. Where would my 90 1LE Camaro with a Detroit Speed Engineering front suspension sub frame that replaces the struts with upper and lower control arm run in? I can't run your proposed CAM-C because I no longer have my factory struts and CAM-T requires old school suspensions and the fact that my car is a 90 would also not meet that class requirement. It not easy, is it.

You bring up a good point, BUT there's the letter of the law that would question putting Control arms on a strut car, and then there's the spirit of the law that addresses the real division between car classes. Following the letter of the law is what creates books filled with rules and people that walk away because it gets too complicated. The spirit of the law keeps things simple and the playing field level and competitive as much as possible in all classes.

What's the background behind dividing the classes between 77 and 78?

• Old technology Muscle cars with crappy base suspension platforms didn't end in 1977.
• New cars with better base suspension platforms didn't begin in 1978.

Advanced technology applied to muscle cars is the great divider, not simply the year it was made.

The spirit of what I was saying is not so much the focus on the struts, but rather that suspension thinking and engineering changed as technology came out of the dark ages. Think about this- the same basic type of spring design used under a 78-81 Camaro (again I point out the same exact design as a 77 and prior Camaro) was used on buggies pulled by horses before cars were even thought of. Let's ponder that for a minute! Now if you look at the computer optimized suspension of a 2015 Camaro, how does that type of technology even compare to a leaf spring first designed in the 1600s? Or to the suspension of a 78 Mustang or an 87 Monte Carlo SS? It just doesn't, it's way more advanced and in a league way beyond the earlier suspension design. Therefore it isn't fair and isn't a "level playing field" to make an 87 Monte or an 81 Camaro compete against a 1991 Camaro, or 2006 GTO, or 2013 Mustang, or 2015 Camaro...

For Mustangs technology became more advanced in '79 and Camaros in '82 when new technology said that a strut based geometry was better than what had been done for many, many years without major advances in design concepts. Since that turning point suspension design has never looked back. For G body guys like me the crappy suspension didn't end in 1977 at all, it ended in 1988 when they dropped a platform concept design that was basically the same since 1964. Since I have to compete with new cars I have to go to extremes in modifications and then people call "Race Car!" and I get booted out of it all together. You can say the same driver in an average old school car modified with off the shelf parts will be just as fast as the same driver driving a new car with sticky tires and some mild mods, but call me a pessimist, I don't buy it.

I should say here my opinion is that SCCA is generally doing a great job trying to fit square pegs in round holes and I applaud their efforts to include us. Anyone throwing their hands in the air and avoiding it doesn't help anything. Forum discussions like this move the industry along and lead to better opportunity for everyone involved. Much like Lance said though there needs to be a little adjustment here and there. It seems SCCA's chosen a cut off year as the main divider for classes but really that isn't fair to many of the participants.

Bottom line is I'd like to see through 1988 G bodies, through 81 Camaros/ Firebirds, and through 79 Novas be able to compete with cars that have similar suspension and platform designs, i.e the now 77 and older cars Cam T class. I'd feel much more of a challenge and feel better about getting beat by a car with a similar suspension than by a new car with a completely different and more advanced suspension.

I hope my point makes sense to everyone.

[bryant]

the idea of pro touring cars is customizing your car to a more modern standard. this is not high big stakes racing. their are no big pay outs to the winner. so fun is the important thing. im in cam-s due to my wheel base and weight. it kind of sucks. if a car that cam s was designed around shows up like a cobra or corvette that is prepped for competition, they should effortlessly beat me or the other 2 regulars in my region (a falcon and mustang II). for example when the tour came to San Diego, a c3 vette showed up. it had just finished being put together. the driver was down playing the car having a smog dog motor and had not done any suspension tuning. by the end of the event he had it running as fast as the fastest locals. he was still down playing the car. Mary Pozzi showed up with her incredible camaro and delt a real beating on the other cam t cars by 2 seconds.
Marys car is on the cutting edge of pro touing type classic american muscle cars.
i dont think the rules should be changed in regard to keep cars like Marys out. Cars like Marys are what drives this part of the sport. i do think the rules need to address cam s having the small wheel base cars force to run with the sports cars like cobras and corvettes. if you look at the results tom posted above you can compare the cam s cars times to the cam t cars. Toms valient and Alcinos mustang II were .01 second apart! while the idea of cam s is good, it needs to be adjusted.
My car is a little light to run in cam t but i can add weight to do that but i cant stretch my wheel base.
i would say the important difference in the cars cam s is targeted for (corvettes, cobra etc) is the engine is set behind the front axle and the cars can be very light weight.
to let the smaller wheel base cars like mavericks, mustang IIs, vegas and others into cam t would just mean they would need to add weight. if anybody wants to reach the level of performance Mary demonstrates then they can invest in the car and work on the driving skills to match her incredible performance.
im sure ive done a bit of rambling here and hope every body can follow the general through process.
The San Diego Cam guys are a great group. Thank you to Tom for cheering everybody while he constantly beats us on the track.

[Siddvette]

This may or may not be the appropriate forum for this, but I'm trying to get the word out that the Washington DC SCCA Region made a decision recently to allow all vettes and vipers into CAM. Allowances are 3,100 pound minimum, and all other CAM-S requirements. I can supply the email from the WDCR SCCA Chair if needed.

Best,
Sidd




the idea of pro touring cars is customizing your car to a more modern standard. this is not high big stakes racing. their are no big pay outs to the winner. so fun is the important thing. im in cam-s due to my wheel base and weight. it kind of sucks. if a car that cam s was designed around shows up like a cobra or corvette that is prepped for competition, they should effortlessly beat me or the other 2 regulars in my region (a falcon and mustang II). for example when the tour came to San Diego, a c3 vette showed up. it had just finished being put together. the driver was down playing the car having a smog dog motor and had not done any suspension tuning. by the end of the event he had it running as fast as the fastest locals. he was still down playing the car. Mary Pozzi showed up with her incredible camaro and delt a real beating on the other cam t cars by 2 seconds.
Marys car is on the cutting edge of pro touing type classic american muscle cars.
i dont think the rules should be changed in regard to keep cars like Marys out. Cars like Marys are what drives this part of the sport. i do think the rules need to address cam s having the small wheel base cars force to run with the sports cars like cobras and corvettes. if you look at the results tom posted above you can compare the cam s cars times to the cam t cars. Toms valient and Alcinos mustang II were .01 second apart! while the idea of cam s is good, it needs to be adjusted.
My car is a little light to run in cam t but i can add weight to do that but i cant stretch my wheel base.
i would say the important difference in the cars cam s is targeted for (corvettes, cobra etc) is the engine is set behind the front axle and the cars can be very light weight.
to let the smaller wheel base cars like mavericks, mustang IIs, vegas and others into cam t would just mean they would need to add weight. if anybody wants to reach the level of performance Mary demonstrates then they can invest in the car and work on the driving skills to match her incredible performance.
im sure ive done a bit of rambling here and hope every body can follow the general through process.
The San Diego Cam guys are a great group. Thank you to Tom for cheering everybody while he constantly beats us on the track.

[rjsolo]

the idea of pro touring cars is customizing your car to a more modern standard. this is not high big stakes racing. their are no big pay outs to the winner. so fun is the important thing. im in cam-s due to my wheel base and weight. it kind of sucks. if a car that cam s was designed around shows up like a cobra or corvette that is prepped for competition, they should effortlessly beat me or the other 2 regulars in my region (a falcon and mustang II). for example when the tour came to San Diego, a c3 vette showed up. it had just finished being put together. the driver was down playing the car having a smog dog motor and had not done any suspension tuning. by the end of the event he had it running as fast as the fastest locals. he was still down playing the car. Mary Pozzi showed up with her incredible camaro and delt a real beating on the other cam t cars by 2 seconds.
Marys car is on the cutting edge of pro touing type classic american muscle cars.
i dont think the rules should be changed in regard to keep cars like Marys out. Cars like Marys are what drives this part of the sport. i do think the rules need to address cam s having the small wheel base cars force to run with the sports cars like cobras and corvettes. if you look at the results tom posted above you can compare the cam s cars times to the cam t cars. Toms valient and Alcinos mustang II were .01 second apart! while the idea of cam s is good, it needs to be adjusted.
My car is a little light to run in cam t but i can add weight to do that but i cant stretch my wheel base.
i would say the important difference in the cars cam s is targeted for (corvettes, cobra etc) is the engine is set behind the front axle and the cars can be very light weight.
to let the smaller wheel base cars like mavericks, mustang IIs, vegas and others into cam t would just mean they would need to add weight. if anybody wants to reach the level of performance Mary demonstrates then they can invest in the car and work on the driving skills to match her incredible performance.
im sure ive done a bit of rambling here and hope every body can follow the general through process.
The San Diego Cam guys are a great group. Thank you to Tom for cheering everybody while he constantly beats us on the track.

Hi Bryant,
Good running with you guys at the San Diego Tour! I have the C3 corvette you mentioned. Although it is underpowered, a lot of work went into the suspension: Fully adjustable custom coil-over conversion with Bilstein aluminum race shocks, SPC aluminum arms, Vansteel offset rear trailing arms, heim joints, taller Nascar ball joints, relocated geometry, etc. Power is overrated in AX, the San Diego course was hairy even with my motor. I also had wider wheels, competitive tires, and more driving experience, with 15 SD tours. Even so, the Mustang II was quicker, and Mary was a good 1.5sec faster. Lately Ian's 66 mustang, Tom's mild Valiant and my vette run similar times.

I don't think the C3 (and maybe C2) vettes should be grouped differently than CAM-T. Even with an aluminum LS, an autocross prepped C3 comes in around 3,100lbs, and the chassis is more flexible than a unibody. After a lot of runs at the Del Mar Goodguys, Maier's Mustang was quicker than Hohbaugh's C2. Mary's heavier car does very well vs well driven vettes, and there are a lot of advanced CAM-T type builds like the RS Rampage Camaro, that would be top runners. Although I do think $1mil aluminum bodied Cobras:), kit cars, and lightweight full tube chassis cars should be separated into the CAM-S class, then the low 2,600 lb minimum weight limit makes sense. IMO, a light short wheel-base car like a turbo Vega would be dominant.

Rick

[rjsolo]

This may or may not be the appropriate forum for this, but I'm trying to get the word out that the Washington DC SCCA Region made a decision recently to allow all vettes and vipers into CAM. Allowances are 3,100 pound minimum, and all other CAM-S requirements. I can supply the email from the WDCR SCCA Chair if needed.

Best,
Sidd

Hi Sidd,

I think it's great to have a place for modern muscle in the CAM classes. Although the modern Corvettes would dominate any typical CAM-S C2-C3, so the C4-C7 don't belong in the same class. In a few weeks, take a look at the results of the STU C5 corvettes vs CAM-S at SCCA championships. A full weight STU corvette with stock engine and drivetrain, cats, long gearing, and 275 street tires is surprisingly quick.

Then imagine the increased performance over the base model STU C5 of a C5-C7 Z06, or an ASP prepped vette and an SSM vette, with wider tires and more power. It will be clear they don't belong in CAM-S with the current rule-set. I do believe modern 3,100lb ABS sportscars would be a good fit with the cobras, kit cars, and light weight or tube chassis cars in a revised CAM-S class I mentioned above. Maybe that would be a good way to increase numbers in the CAM-S class?

Most think 3 CAM classes is already pushing the limit, but with the increased interest in CAM- C, it makes sense.

With new participation data, I could see this as a classing reshuffle:
CAM-T: All existing CAM-T cars, maybe lower the weight limit by 100lbs to 2,900 for mustangs, etc., add stock frame C2-C3 vettes. Same car classing as Goodguys, etc.
CAM-S: Cobras, light-weight tube chassis cars, kit cars, C4-C7 Vettes and Vipers.
CAM-C: Newer model ABS muscle cars, or add the C4-C7 vettes and Vipers (Especially if a ST pony class is added). For example the new Z-28 is competitive with vettes in USCA.

What do you think?

Thanks - Rick

[Trackside-Suzy]

I would want everyone to say what the new guy said, I just can't find his name at the moment.

The creators of CAM (If I understood them correctly) wanted to expand membership and create a place where cars/drivers that commonly drive at Goodguys can compete. In other words: enhance/increase membership and participation with a demographic that they weren’t serving.

As someone who has run most types of autocross events (SCCA, USCA, ASCS and Goodguys (as well as several others) I can say that A) Muscle car people aren't interested in rules. A rule book just implies exclusion and creates disagreement. If there are rules there are always going to be those looking for loopholes to exploit and those who feel it is their god-given right to enforce or change them. B) Autocross outside of SCCA for the muscle car crowd, is as much about the community and friendships as it is the actual competition. My prior experience with SCCA was not positive or enjoyable in addition to there being no class for the car (this is going back a few years). My experience with Goodguys had few rules and I ALWAYS had a blast. For $35 (or thereabouts) I could run all weekend and have a great time with enthusiasts that will be my friends for the rest of my life. Let’s see, what would you want to do?

Now, as much as it pains me to address the debate over classes and rules (and it is painful) for some reason I want to throw in my two cents.
Firstly: I’m sorry but Corvettes have no business in the CAM class unless you create a CAMCorvette class. The only reason that a Corvette is losing (and again, this is my opinion and you’re entitled to your own – that I will not debate) is because you aren’t driving it well enough. I am not interested in arguing this point, it’s my opinion.

Secondly: I think that Lance has a point. I don’t believe that a G-body should have to compete with a new Mustang (or a new anything for that matter). G-body cars are 70’s technology and underpinnings with an 80’s badge slapped onto them. Move the G-bodies to CAM-T and call it a day.
I will say this (somewhat reluctantly) I got all excited about CAM class after running in Indiana at the CAM Challenge. Without going into too much detail, regional race days need to be run more like the CAM Challenge was run if you want CAM cars to show up.

Valerie, I hear what you're saying because I felt the same way and I thought my eyeballs were going to start bleeding while reading through this thread. I detest discussions of rules and debate about what is fair -- no one comes away happy. BUT, the CAM Challenge was really great and the closest thing I've seen to an SCCA region that has cultivated the culture of muscle car autocross is San Diego.

Sorry that turned into more like ten cents.

[nokones]

Ms. Trackside:

If you don't think that Corvettes should be allowed in CAM, what is your opinion/position on allowing the Chevrolet SS 4-Door Sedan in CAM. No debate, just curious.

[SSLance]

I want to agree with Suzy here...and not just because she agreed with me first. ;)

She hit the nail on the head with all of her points and I'm pretty certain the powers that be with the SCCA and more pointedly the CAM part of the SCCA are hearing her (and others that agree with her) loud and clear.

[Rod]

this is a fun thread....interesting to read....

I'm going to be the A SS hole here and say something.........

OK, I get it everyone wants to run with the cool kids or whatever you want to say, but CAM was designed to bring me back to SCCA, I left SCCA years ago because my Camaro (under the convoluted as hell rules) placed my car in ESP because it had tube control arms and an LS swap...well my little car with carpet, radio, leaf springs, now had to compete against tube chassis, 3 link, 4link, fiber glass panel, stripped down zero interior cars along with corvettes with fat rims and or slick running cars, ?? WHY?? because there wasn't a "Make your Pile of SH*T drive-able class" and I didn't see one corvette, Cobra, Viper guy shed a tear over that fact,...not one.... and NOW that SCCA wants the PT/Goodguys/USCA/OPTIMA style cars to come back and race SCCA the excluded cars are whimpering....its pretty simple if you want to race CAM build or buy a car that fits within the FEW rules there are...for the love of God, stop trying to make rules up for a class that you don't even run in. SCCA Rules are plentiful; if you want Sh*T ton of rules, go run in one of the existing classes your car fits in and fight about those rules. Leave the muscle cars out of it. Or, leave the muscle cars out altogether, it's not hurting us to run elsewhere.

I know I'm poking the Bee-hive as someone told me but its that simple

[Trackside-Suzy]

Ms. Trackside:

If you don't think that Corvettes should be allowed in CAM, what is your opinion/position on allowing the Chevrolet SS 4-Door Sedan in CAM. No debate, just curious.

I (with a limited understanding of the suspension/wheel base) think that the SS should go with the CAM-C class. Not sure why it shouldn't be competitive with the 5th Gen Camaro. Is there something I should be aware of that differentiates the SS?

[IndyDave]

Everyone who is directly involved with CAM at the SCCA National office level are on the same page. They know that a lot of rules will kill CAM and everyone has pledged to keep that from happening. In the current discussions all that is being looked at is how the 3 classes are split, weights, wheelbases, and cars to be added or deleted from the exclusions list. The only actual rule change should be outlawing Lexan windshields. And it was stated in the 2015 rules that would happen.

[Rod]

The only actual rule change should be outlawing Lexan windshields. And it was stated in the 2015 rules that would happen.

What? no way and I just bought an entire Lexan factory in Botswana knowing that all CAM cars were going to have to run plastic windows!! awww damn

[Craig510]

I think the current cam rules are great. I ran last year at Crows Landing and we were all racing for second place behind Brian Hobaugh's Vett. I came in last, but it was a good learning experience. I broke my car at the T-Hill USCA so I couldn't run at this year's west coast event, but I'll be back next year and hopefully run a bunch of events.

If I could make one change I would add CAM-U. An unlimited class with no minimum weight or wheelbase requirements. I am building a 28 Model A with a target weight of 1800# I don't want to add a 600# under body panel, but will if the rules require it.

[alwaysracin]

I have been lurking and just have a few questions and my own ideas.

I believe CAM was designed to be a Hot Rod class, a TRUE Builders class something cool that would not fit into the normal classes. I am totally for this idea. Rodney's Camaro, LS powered would end up in Street Mod but yet he did the engine swap for driveability, instantly screwed (trust me I ran that class years ago). Cool car, great project that has more miles than my daily driver. These classes are made for that type of project.

Ok, I have been asked in the past what my feelings are for the newer Corvettes. Here it is, being a true hot rodder/builders class going out and buying a C5-or newer, slapping some heads, cam, headers and suspension does not make you a true builder. If you take a C1, C2, C3 or (yes Ken I will let you have it) C4 and spend the time and effort to do a complete chassis swap, you are a builder (and have build a cool car in my opinion). As A Socal person has shown, we can't keep up with a STU car. As a few north-western guys have proven, we can't keep up with an A-Street car.

OK, why can't we keep up with cars that weigh (let's just say) a lot more weight, and half the HP. It comes down to a few things.

-Aerodynamics, yes at solo speeds it does make a little difference.
-ABS, HUGE advantage
-balance and a known working setup

Aerodynamics do play a role and if an older car is against an older car, they are both stuck with pretty much the same brick. I personally would like to see more rules before it turns into AMOD. (which, trust me it will. We do have the HP to put the barn door on top of the car and a sucker fan under it)


ABS- I have torn down and scrapped a winning CSP car to swap everything over to a chassis with ABS. Huge pain in the @ss but worth it. I do not believe ABS belongs in any of the older CAM classes. Meaning CAM-S and CAM-T. I do know the C4 Corvette do have ABS and it is an advantage but it is an older system. Personally I would like to see them disable it but for bringing in numbers I am fine with letting them have it (for now).

Balance and Setup. just back to the new cars and working right off the dealership. Look at how quick the F-street Camaro and Mustangs can run with tires. Yes they have good drivers but how much testing would it take to get something garage built to get to that level.

So, now my questions.
in the current rules what limitations does the suspension or drivetrain have in any of the classes? So I could take my SS and install a c6 Corvette underneath it? Would be legal?
I have heard people say old design. I say sure but no rules say you can't change it. In Bruce's Cobra he has designed and made brackets to bolt to factory locations (so no new holes or damage to the car) and redesigned the front end. Completely legal. I would bet if it was a kit car he would chop the front end off and start from scratch. For this reason I would rather not have kit cars legal but I do want to run against people, so bring it!

I have also heard people say, I can't run with blank. Some of these competitors have years.. scratch that, decades. of auto crossing experience. Driving experience makes a huge difference. How many have gone to an actual autocross school? Had a local fast guy jump into our car and give you a ride? Even going for a ride in your own car can be an eye opening experience. I can tell you first hand setting up a nationally competitive car is difficult and not something you order over the phone. It takes time. The CSP car took me 5 years with changing things every run. The Bruce's Cobra has taken 1.5 years and we are not near the potential. If you think buying someone's setup or knowledge is going to make you win events you are wrong. I know Miatas best so I CAN use them as an example. On miata.net some people would say you need this or only run that. I would then comment. They would take the other persons advice because they posted more than I would. Well, they were wrong and lead that person down the slow path and I honestly don't know if they ever got fast. Do not take someone's advise without testing yourself! Testing takes time but you need to have a goal and even if one weekend is slow you need to keep focused on the main goal.


Oh, I do think a new CAM for sports cars would be cool.



See you at Nationals,
Scott Fraser

[nokones]

Yes, the C4 Corvette's ABS system is an older system and the only advantage that this ABS has is keeping you from flat spotting the inside front tire on turns. The C4 Corvettes have horrible ABS systems and the stock brakes suck too. There is no way that you can drive this ABS system deep into a turn and brake late, especially if you don't have all 4 tires planted on the ground. The ABS is essentially useless in that case, it gets in the way of the braking effectiveness. If you spike the system and the ABS kicks in, you essentially do not have any brakes at all, the pedal just gets hard and it is difficult to push pass the ABS in these situations.

Many years ago when I was running my 93 40th in Super Stock, I took the fuse out to see what would happen when the ABS was disabled, the inside tire would lock up every time when I applied the brakes but, the brake effectiveness was a tad better since the ABS didn't get in the way.

Maybe if I pull the fuse and install a brake bias valve that may be the trick. I think I might try that when I get my car back from Lingenfelter.

[chetly]

Reading through all this mess, it still hasn't been answered why c4 and up corvettes and vipers don't have a place to play here. They made a class for new model Mustang and Camaros, why not Corvette and Vipers. The turnout of c4+ Corvettes at the CAM Challenge west was proof enough of build it and they will come.

[Rod]

Reading through all this mess, it still hasn't been answered why c4 and up corvettes and vipers don't have a place to play here. They made a class for new model Mustang and Camaros, why not Corvette and Vipers. The turnout of c4+ Corvettes at the CAM Challenge west was proof enough of build it and they will come.

they already qualify for other classes....do you own a C4?

[chetly]

I own a c5z. the c5 z06 has ZERO places to play competitively if you have more modifications than 1 sway bar and shocks (not coil overs, but shocks). They aren't allowed in Street Tourning, only base model Corvettes are. My car has a race seat because stock c5 corvette seats suck! It has both sway bars changed, 18x10.5 wheels on all 4 corners, JRi shocks, cold air intake, headers, high flow cats, x-pipe and its tuned. My car is an STU car except for the fact it is a z06. I Drive my car to and from events and like to run street tires. So, where do I go and play? Oh that's right, no where unless I want to run against cars on race tires in SSP. So locally AAS has made the allowance that we can run in CAM-S, and ya know what, there is no short of 5-6 drivers in the class every weekend instead of 2 (Bruce and Scott). So don't tell me by allowing c4 and up Corvettes and Vipers will kill the class. The only thing I see it doing is increasing it...

[nokones]

they already qualify for other classes....do you own a C4?

What SCCA class would a C4 legally fit in that was built to the extent of the Pro-Touring rules? Obviously, not stock. Definitely not Street Prepared or Street Modified with an after market engine block and/or suspension mounting point location modifications. There is no class for any Corvette in Prepared, SCCA took that class away several years ago. Can't legally run a true street production car in E Modified either. Hmmm, the only category that I can see where a street car that was prepared to the extent of the Pro-Touring rules is CAM and it looks like that CAM-S would be the appropriate class in accordance with the 3 existing classes.

Unless, I am missing something, I am open to learning a little more about the SCCA rules and how my C4 Corvette would be legal in a non-CAM category.

[chetly]

Also, look no further than the CAM challenge that happened at crows landing, how many late model Corvettes entered the event because they opened up the class to late model vettes. How many would there have been if they didn't, TWO (again, Scott and Bruce)!!!

Then look at the SCCA Tour event held in Crows Landing. CAM-s had the 2nd biggest class (until they pulled their stunt) because of all the late model Corvettes. How many would there have been of it wasn't for all the Corvette drivers? TWO (you got it, Scott and Bruce)

[IndyDave]

Also, look no further than the CAM challenge that happened at crows landing, how many late model Corvettes entered the event because they opened up the class to late model vettes. How many would there have been if they didn't, TWO (again, Scott and Bruce)!!!

Then look at the SCCA Tour event held in Crows Landing. CAM-s had the 2nd biggest class (until they pulled their stunt) because of all the late model Corvettes. How many would there have been of it wasn't for all the Corvette drivers? TWO (you got it, Scott and Bruce)

When CAM was created it was a single class. At that time there was some legitimate concern that it would wind up being a "late model Corvette" class so they were outlawed along with the Dodge Viper to allow the class to grow with the intended audience. The opinion was that late model Corvettes had other classes where they are or have recently been competitive. During the first year of CAM while the Corvettes were allowed, what we were seeing were SS and BS regulars coming over and dominating in the regions where they ran. Now that CAM is now a category we maintained the Corvette ban while things sorted themselves out. But with CAM/S being a real under performer in the CAM landscape, powers that be are seriously considering letting the Corvettes and Viper back in.

[chetly]

When CAM was created it was a single class. At that time there was some legitimate concern that it would wind up being a "late model Corvette" class so they were outlawed along with the Dodge Viper to allow the class to grow with the intended audience. The opinion was that late model Corvettes had other classes where they are or have recently been competitive. During the first year of CAM while the Corvettes were allowed, what we were seeing were SS and BS regulars coming over and dominating in the regions where they ran. Now that CAM is now a category we maintained the Corvette ban while things sorted themselves out. But with CAM/S being a real under performer in the CAM landscape, powers that be are seriously considering letting the Corvettes and Viper back in.

I don't have a problem if they want to make a different class for the corvettes and vipers, but realistically who are the competitors that go to nationals in cam-s besides Scott and Bruce? Not allowing Corvettes and Viper will be the death of CAM-S, mark my words. I've talked with Raleigh at the CAM Challenge dinner and at the OUSCI finals in Vegas with the likes of Mike Maier and Brian and Steve Hobaugh and we've made our feelings felt.

[Rod]

Unless, I am missing something, I am open to learning a little more about the SCCA rules and how my C4 Corvette would be legal in a non-CAM category.

per SCCA



SS and BS regulars

[IndyDave]

I don't have a problem if they want to make a different class for the corvettes and vipers, but realistically who are the competitors that go to nationals in cam-s besides Scott and Bruce? Not allowing Corvettes and Viper will be the death of CAM-S, mark my words. I've talked with Raleigh at the CAM Challenge dinner and at the OUSCI finals in Vegas with the likes of Mike Maier and Brian and Steve Hobaugh and we've made our feelings felt.

Well, right now CAM/S is almost non-existent, some go as far as calling it the Cobra only class. So we're re-visiting the cars we've said no to in the past. At this point it's all discussion. I haven't heard anymore since the last e-mail blast to the group. The C-5, 6 & 7's I'm not real comfortable with allowing in but I have never agreed with outlawing the C-4. While it was leaps and bounds better than the car it replaced, it certainly no where near the "super car" level performance that the later cars have. As for the Viper, autocrossing one seems to be an exercise in futility. Those things are road course focused machines and there aren't enough of them in autocross to worry about.

[nokones]

per SCCA

Exactly, there is no legal class for any Pro-Touring prepared car, including all Corvettes, in the SCCA Solo categories except CAM.

[nokones]

Well, right now CAM/S is almost non-existent, some go as far as calling it the Cobra only class. So we're re-visiting the cars we've said no to in the past. At this point it's all discussion. I haven't heard anymore since the last e-mail blast to the group. The C-5, 6 & 7's I'm not real comfortable with allowing in but I have never agreed with outlawing the C-4. While it was leaps and bounds better than the car it replaced, it certainly no where near the "super car" level performance that the later cars have. As for the Viper, autocrossing one seems to be an exercise in futility. Those things are road course focused machines and there aren't enough of them in autocross to worry about.

If the C4s are allowed to compete in CAM in 2016, I hope that the C5s and newer Corvettes are also allowed to play. My position is the more the better so the class can learn and progress as a class. Also, you can have a lot more fun with a bigger class than a smaller class especially when swapping the lies. I like competing when there are a lot of cars in the class. It is very possible that Scott and Bruce will dominate the class for some time. That is Ok, we'll (as a class) figure it out so we can get that little Cobra and shut'em down (Oops, I think the Rip Cords' song had it the other way around).

Also, let the Vipers play too. If it is american, let them play.

As I mentioned in numerous letters to SCCA and the postings on this forum, do not exclude any car. Let the cars run and sort it out later, if necessary. If a bunch of Vipers and the C7 Corvettes come out and shut down the little Cobra and walk away from the rest of the new CAM-S class, than something should be done. Then, maybe a new class is justified, especially if the numbers are there to support a new class.

Look at the numbers in CAM-C that attended the CAM East Challenge. The class was "HUGE" with old and new cars and I am sure it was fun to be there. I personally think the numbers are there for splitting the class between old and new CAM-C cars. If you continue to allow the new/modern cars dominate the class, you may see a bunch of the older cars go away. That would not be a good thing and I would hate to see that happen.

Excluding cars is way outside of the club's philosophy/spirit in promoting the sport. Lets take a positive approach and make room for anyone who wants to play with Pro-Touring prep cars. If the numbers are there to warrant a fourth or fifth class, so be it, lets make it happen and just have some fun. That is how the Solo program, when it was called Solo II, grew many decades ago.

If CAM grows really big just like the Solo II program did in the early days, maybe CAM will become its own entity. You never know, I think it would be a very good thing if that happens. I feel it will bring back a lot of people and their old cars that SCCA use to have before the Solo category rules and the classes got SCCA'd up over time. Besides the MGs, Austin Healeys, and a few Porsches, what majority of cars do you think that were autocrossing in those days. Yep, the cars you are seeing in CAM now. Yes, I know, the Corvairs where also running in those days.

Come on SCCA, lets work together and make this happen, let everyone have some fun at this sport with their old cars again.

There will always be one class winner and non-class winners in each class. No one is a loser because it was fun trying to be a winner and you win at the fact that you learned something from it. Now, you can put what you previously learned at the last event into action at the next event. That is what this sport is all about, learning, having fun, some more fun, and swapping the lies. If you're not good at swapping the lies, you will learn that art too. It usually comes natural if you play in this sport long enough.

Indy Dave, I know the CAM Invitational is only two weeks away, I hope you will post or start the new discussion "2016 SCCA CAM Rules" as soon it is announced, or PM me with hopefully good news.

[Cyclone03]

wow good read.
I am still new to all this,ran my first autocross ever at Good Guys Ft Worth in 2013,then again in 2014 I'm now running CAM-T with the local SCCA club SASCA here in San Antonio . I'm leading the class because except for 2 events this year I was a class of 1. My new rival is a 65/66 Mustang that changed tires from ESP and I'm 1.5-2 sec behind them (2 drivers same car).
Just from the slow end of the field the only rule to split the classes would be a front tire rule 245 or less /255 greater of course my reason is personnel. to get a 255 under the front of an early Mustang is work ($).

Now as for rules that may get approved. 2 door 4 passenger pre 72 ( or cars with pre 72 chassie/suspension) CAM-T no wheel base limit but must be +/- ? from stock. Yes Mavericks AMX's FAT (heavy) Pintos 3000lb min.

You CAM-C and S guys can do what you want but leave me alone LOL. a manditory 4 door class....?

[IndyDave]

Brian Mason penned the following in a discussion on the CAM Challenge East FB page similar to the discussion here. It is the absolute BEST description of what CAM is about.

"I'm going to do my best Sam Strano and Lance Hamilton impersonation here so bear with me. I've driven in and been involved with SCCA Solo, or Autocross events for over 33 years, things tend to get stagnant and boring over time but also you become desensitized to things over time as well. A few years ago I attended the Holley LS Fest, well, it was more than attended, my local SCCA region was asked to help with the Autocross. Over the course of the next few days I was completely floored and in awe at what was going on there, there were 100+ drivers, driving their cars through the Autocross course and every single one of them had a HUGE smile on their face. Repeatedly drivers would come off course saying it was some of the most fun they've ever had in their cars. It didn't matter how fast or slow they went, they were smiling when they finished their run. I thought to myself, this is such a contrast to the majority of the SCCA solo events I've been to for years, it took a bunch of hot rodders for me to realize how grumpy most SCCA solo participants had become, to them it's a competition and there can only be one winner. Immediately after that event I begged for a pass to the Optima Invitational event in Vegas following SEMA, went out there and saw the same thing, big smiles, laughter and camaraderie, except there people were spending thousands and thousands of dollars to drive their hot rod in a glorified autocross and loving every second of it!

Fast forward a few years and now I'm fortunate enough to spend time at and around the three organizations involved here, the USCA, Good Guys and the SCCA. The three are very unique and have their own niche. It is very challenging if not impossible to build a car that will be competitive in all three under the current state of event segment operations but I also do not think that is the intended goal of the SCCA CAM class creators. IMHO the idea behind the class creation and rule set is to allow some place within the SCCA solo community for Good Guys or USCA competitors and enthusiast's to participate, gain seat time and enjoy their cars. The SCCA sanctions over 1,400 (yes, one thousand, four hundred autocrosses) solo events EACH year hosted by 115 different independently operated regions, that makes it easy and very inexpensive to find somewhere local to enjoy your hot rod. Sure the events are run by volunteers and each participant has to “work” and the runs are limited to often times 4, 5 or 6 total, but the system works, has worked for 40 or 50 years and is sustainable for the indefinite future. Each region is free to make their own supplemental classes and or use the National recognized classes as outlined in the rule book. This gives the freedom to locally cater to different demands, I know my local region (in the heart of Corvette Country and self proclaimed “Hot Rod City”) created a CAM-X class that replaced “S” that does allow C-4 and never Vettes and Vipers to run using the CAM ruleset, they also have a identical ruled “STO” class for the American V-8 powered swapped import cars, again giving these guys some place to play amongst other like minded participants. I think the CAM creators did an excellent job with the rules and classes, it is only the second year in existence and the biggest argument that can be made is what class a particular car fits into? Look at the times at the CAM east event, you could combine C and T and all the different cars would be as competitive in that one class as in any single SCCA national event class of that size. I think that's awesome! one neat thing about the CAM class is it was conceived, created and the rule set was written with out the involvement of the traditional SEB (SCCA Solo Events Board), it really doesn't even report to them and it is not a “national championship eligible” class, again, it's not created for competition so much as it is created to be experienced.

One thing to note about experienced, veteran motorsports participants, whether it be SCCA soloist or road racers, they spend a lot of time understanding course elements and reading pavement irregularities and types, how certain elements flow into the next. Very good ones will measure gate width and slalom spacing, turn radius and braking/acceleration points, if you were to walk the course with any number of the top finishers at the CAM East event and asked them what speed their car will be travelling at any given point on the course they would be able to accurately tell you, doesn't matter if they've ever sat behind the wheel of the car they are driving or not. That is the difference between turning a fast run within your first three runs on course and taking 6, 8 or even 10 runs to get there. The CAM east event field was stacked with talent, by far the most talent a CAM event has seen to date. There were a number of talented drivers there most of which were in under developed/under tired cars, there were also a number of talented drivers who were not there for one reason or another. The field is only going to get better and bigger. I can think of many "east" drivers who are either building cars or had to scratch their CAM East entry for some reason and there are just as many "west" drivers who are out there as well. There is a reason these drivers are interested in this class, it's not because it's “easy pickings”, it's because it is really fun to drive and hang out with like minded enthusiasts.

If you want to WIN maybe the CAM experience is the wrong class for you, pick an organization, a class, pull out the Rulebook and build a car to that rule set. If you want to hang out in the grid or paddock, have some fun and drive your hot rod creation as hard as you can and enjoy it for what it is then I think you've found another outlet to do so with the SCCA and the CAM class."

[Tomswheels]

That sums it up beautifully. I find it interesting in the San Diego SCCA that we (CAM-T and -S) are the only class that bring a BBQ and hang out together under the same shade all day, eating together, working on each other's cars, and a little smack talking about our cars and races. I think the "old SCCA" types didn't know what to make of us at first, but I think we have slowly showed them that CAM = FUN.

[Tomswheels]

2 more pix with Camaros, just in case there are one or two Camaro fans on this forum...

[IndyDave]

A slight diversion from the topic at hand. Wanted to let everyone know there is now a Facebook group dedicated to people interested in CAM. It's called CAM Nation and it can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/CAMNation/

[nokones]

Hmmm, I don't have a Facebook page yet. Is this group only for CAM competitors that actually run in CAM? Is there a secret handshake protocol in order to join?

[mpozzi]

Hmmm, I don't have a Facebook page yet. Is this group only for CAM competitors that actually run in CAM? Is there a secret handshake protocol in order to join?

Get a FaceBook account, Ken. Then send a request to join the CAM group. It's that easy and there's no "secret squirrel" stuff you have to do. It's for anyone that has an interest in CAM activities, people, the cars, news, whatever ...

Mary Pozzi

[Cyclone03]

They let me in,no hoops to jump through.

[IndyDave]

Hmmm, I don't have a Facebook page yet. Is this group only for CAM competitors that actually run in CAM? Is there a secret handshake protocol in order to join?

Anyone can join, even you! LOL

[nokones]

Hmmm, I don't have a Facebook page yet. Is this group only for CAM competitors that actually run in CAM? Is there a secret handshake protocol in order to join?

Anyone can join, even you! LOL

OK, I guess there is no initiation like waxing everybody's car or something like that. I was kinda wondering about that. I better get a Facebook paging going so I can hang with the kool people and cars and swap lies with the best.

[chetly]

Hell Ken, I joined and I drive a C5. Just join and be a fellow outlaw Corvette driver...

[nokones]

Hell Ken, I joined and I drive a C5. Just join and be a fellow outlaw Corvette driver...

I don't know, my daughter warned me about those guys with a Blue C5 ZO6 that hangout with a guy that drives a Blue 66 Mustang that is owned by his wife. I'll have to look into creating a Facebook thing so I can join the CAM group and hang with the kool guys and cars.

[chetly]

Any word on the 2016 rules?

[SSLance]

Yes... Those of us that were in Lincoln saw the proposed 2016 rules and then had many discussions on directions to go with the 2016 rules. It's an ongoing process. Nothing firm yet.

[IndyDave]

Raleigh Boreen says he hopes to announce the 2016 rules in November.