SCCA CAM-S Class

[nokones]

I am asking for your thoughts on the subject of allowing two-seat american made cars to compete in the new SCCA CAM -S Class. Some of you may be aware that the proposed 2015 SCCA Solo rules exclude the 1984 and newer Corvettes and all Vipers from competing with other CAM cars. In my personal opinion, excluding any car from competing is not a positive approach for a new program such as, the CAM program.

I would like the SCCA to take a positive approach on this matter and allow the excluded cars compete in CAM-S along with the Cobras and other eligible two-seat american made cars.

Yes, there is a class for moderately modified Corvettes and Vipers and that class is Super Street Modified (SSM). This class is dominated with non-american made cars that are producing high horsepower in the range of 500-600 horsepower and are at the minimum 500 pounds lighter than any legal modified Corvette built in accordance to the SSM rules. That is why you do not see any Corvettes in great numbers compete in the SCCA SSM class at the National Level. You definitely won't see any Vipers competing in SSM.

I believe in the concept of the CAM program and that the cars must remain full bodied with a complete interior. It appears that the new wave of competing on tires with the 200 treadwear rating is the future.

If SCCA allowed the excluded cars to compete in CAM-S this would be a win-win situation for both SCCA and the competitors in the excluded cars. Also, I would like to see SCCA place all Corvettes, including the C1 C2 C3 Corvettes, and Vipers in CAM-S. I believe this would be a great class.

Maybe even Danny Popp, Brian Hobaugh, and Dan Livezy would come back to SCCA if they (SCCA) would develop a class where they can run in a competitive class with their cars. I would be honored to be beat by Danny, Dan, Brian, Bruce Cambern, or Scott Frasier rather than be beat by someone in a non-american car that is 500+ pounds lighter than a Corvette or Viper. Maybe Gary Thomasson will run his Viper with the rest of us.

I am sure that the CAM-T guys and girls probably wouldn't mind that the older Corvettes were moved to CAM-S.

I would like to thank SSLance for suggesting the idea and asking me if I would be agreeable with competing in the CAM-S class.

I would like to know what are everyone thoughts on this subject. Please reply and let me know if you support this or disagree with allowing the C4 and newer Corvettes and Vipers to compete in the SCCA CAM-S class.

I intend to write another letter to the SCCA and I would like to include your support. I would like to mail my letter before the new year.

I appreciate your time and thoughts.

[SSLance]

I have no problem with allowing the C4s in CAM-S, it only seems natural and makes common sense to me.

Not sure about the C5-C7s though...At some point the newer technology cars need to be separated out from the old tech cars. I feel the same way about some of the cars allowed in CAM-C. Seems to be a common theme in several genres as of late.

[Matman3]

I am all for including all Corvettes in CAM-S. We need somewhere to run! In the back of my mind I wonder how the SCCA will screw this class up in 4-6 years. The SCCA has good ideas and intentions to begin with then like any good racer, they tweak things (rules) until they have lost sight of the original intent and racers get lost.

I was raised on the KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid or Keep It Simple Scca.......
USCA seems to have a good thing going. Run watcha Brung, 3000 and up, 3000 and below and 200 treadwear. Simple! Want to go faster? Loose weight, more horsepower, tune suspension.

My 2 cents..........

[Ben@SpeedTech]

Hi Kenny- I, along with Lance, am part of a G body group that is also having issues with the new rules- even though our cars have dinosaur suspension engineering introduced in 1964, we are classed with late models, GTOs, Camaros, the new SS, etc. simply because our cars were manufactured between 1978 and 1987. With their new engineering technology, it's near impossible for us to keep up with them if they are modified anything over stock.

Can an early Vette or Cobra keep up with a C4 +? That's the biggest question with the rules, it's not what year the car is, how many seats it has, what wheel base it has, it's (or should be) a matter of is the playing field level? The way the rules are set up now, at least in CAM C for example, it's like saying a high school football team should be able to play a decent game against last year's Super Bowl winners, simply because they both play football. That's ridiculous.

I can't help but think they also had the shorter, lighter, 2 seat AMC AMX in mind when they created CAM S. Does that car really have a chance against a modern Vette? Not likely. I think even though an AMX is a shorter 2 seater it should be considered a muscle car and run in CAM T. Outside of that, I say again, if an old Vette has potential to keep up with a new Vette or Viper, why not then put them in the same class. It's not fair at all for Vettes or any like car to compete against a high power short/ light import, we're back to the football analogy again.

[Craig510]

I would like to see some prevision for hot rods with no fenders, hoods, and no minimum weight or wheelbase. Run what you brung as long as it has an American production car motor, is titled licensed and insured, has an interior and 200TW tires.

[dontlifttoshift]

Moar Classes!!

I will admit, I am not sure why the tens of enthusiasts with C4 corvettes were excluded.

[73CPCAMARO]

I have no problem having ALL Covettes in CAM-S. This can be a very large class with all of the Corvettes out there (C1 - C7) that want to play with their modified cars on 200 TW tires. I would have two weight limits, 3000 ABS and 2700 non ABS cars. Those numbers can be tweeked if needed. The modern Corvettes with ABS have an advantage over the older cars. As a C2 Corvette owner, I would rather have a class with cars that really push me to go faster than none.

Lets go play!

[nokones]

I agree with Craig510, find a place for the hot rods and let them run. As long as the vehicle is safe to run, I don't be in excluding specific vehicles. If a specific vehicle is a dominating vehicle than the best approach is reclass them, not exclude them, especially when they (SCCA) does not have any hard facts that particular vehicle would be a dominator.

Now, in the case of the C4 Corvette being excluded because they think it would be a dominating vehicle, I sure would like to see those facts proven the fact. It is way too early to say that a C4 Corvette would dominate since none of the C4 Corvettes in Pro-touring trim have shown up running on the 200 treadwear rated tires. Who knows, the C4's on 200 treadwear rated cars could be a back marker in any class. Until those facts are proven, I believe they should run and if the facts prove that the C4 Corvettes do dominate then reclass them, not excluded.

Hopefully, the SCCA will notice the new rules and classes that USCA just posted for the 2015 competition year. USCA did not exclude any vehicles and SCCA should follow the same example.

[SSLance]

We have a 1992 C4 that runs regularly in our region in BSP. When the car was owned by a multi time National Solo Champion it regularly finished fastest fender time of the day and with the new owner driving it on BFG Rivals it's in the top 5-7 in raw time out of 100+ cars.



And that is with a basically stock powertrain.

[IndyDave]

Hopefully, the SCCA will notice the new rules and classes that USCA just posted for the 2015 competition year. USCA did not exclude any vehicles and SCCA should follow the same example.

Raleigh and Velma have been working closely with both Goodguy's and USCA. They worked the optima Invitational in Vegas (Raleigh designed the autocross course and acted as flagman for it.) They also worked the Goodguy's Finale in Scottsdale. SCCA knows well what the others are doing.

[Tomswheels]

Now, in the case of the C4 Corvette being excluded because they think it would be a dominating vehicle, I sure would like to see those facts proven the fact. It is way too early to say that a C4 Corvette would dominate since none of the C4 Corvettes in Pro-touring trim have shown up running on the 200 treadwear rated tires. Who knows, the C4's on 200 treadwear rated cars could be a back marker in any class. Until those facts are proven, I believe they should run and if the facts prove that the C4 Corvettes do dominate then reclass them, not excluded.

Kenny, I appreciate your passion for wanting to run your Corvette in a new class, but your quote above is so ridiculous, it's insulting. Did you ever read a review of a C4 Corvette when it came out (1st production car to pull .95g on a skid pad)? Have you ever opened your hood and looked at the front suspension? Those aren't Mustang II or Gremlin A-Arms, and yes you can easily fit 285-305 tires front and rear... A STOCK C4 Corvette, with the proper 200 Treadwear tires in the biggest size possible and a decent driver, would be dominant in an average Autocross next to the Mustang II and AMX and early Barracuda and whatever else in the class that isn't a Vette or a Cobra...

[bryant]

corvettes and vipers have the biggest advantage with their weight distribution. the engine is behind the front axle. that is really the one modification that is no able to be copied into a traditional muscle car configuration and that gives them a huge advantage. i would suspect that is why they are excluded from a class designed around muscle cars.

[nokones]

Now, in the case of the C4 Corvette being excluded because they think it would be a dominating vehicle, I sure would like to see those facts proven the fact. It is way too early to say that a C4 Corvette would dominate since none of the C4 Corvettes in Pro-touring trim have shown up running on the 200 treadwear rated tires. Who knows, the C4's on 200 treadwear rated cars could be a back marker in any class. Until those facts are proven, I believe they should run and if the facts prove that the C4 Corvettes do dominate then reclass them, not excluded.

Kenny, I appreciate your passion for wanting to run your Corvette in a new class, but your quote above is so ridiculous, it's insulting. Did you ever read a review of a C4 Corvette when it came out (1st production car to pull .95g on a skid pad)? Have you ever opened your hood and looked at the front suspension? Those aren't Mustang II or Gremlin A-Arms, and yes you can easily fit 285-305 tires front and rear... A STOCK C4 Corvette, with the proper 200 Treadwear tires in the biggest size possible and a decent driver, would be dominant in an average Autocross next to the Mustang II and AMX and early Barracuda and whatever else in the class that isn't a Vette or a Cobra...

Yes, I am very well aware of the C4 specs and the other non-Corvette type vehicles performance is not a match to a Corvette. However, we are not talking about the stock or even the street prepared category. We are talking about a category where there are no rules in regards any performance modification. We are talking Pro-Touring rules, meaning any performance modification is OK to run with. So, I believe that you can dial in any car with the right suspension mods and tires that will compete with a Corvette. It may take a little more money because a Mustang II and an AMX will definitely need a lot of mods.

If anybody runs with a stock type suspension in any Pro-Touring type class they would not be competitive in any car. It will cost well over $10,000 for a competitive suspension package for any car to compete in a Pro-Touring class. I am sure the Detroit Speeds Engineering, ridetech, Chris Alston, and Mike Maier, Inc. type shops can build a killer suspension package for just about any car that will be competitive in full Pro-Touring trim.

Also, the Mustang II is in the 2750 pound range and the AMX is in the 3100 pound range. The 89 Corvette weighs in at 3229. These weights are in stock trim. Since I am in a heavy fat car, I would be a little concern running against those 2 vehicles since they are lighter than my Corvette.

So, I find it hard to believe that the 2 cars mentioned modified to the full extent of the Pro-Touring rules would be overly dominated by a C4 Corvette with the same skilled driver.

I get the feeling that "Tomswheels" does not support the fact that the C4 Corvette should be included and/or be classed in an equivalent class suitable for the C4 Corvette and other similar cars. That is not a very positive approach in promoting the CAM program for everyone and every car.

Since, there are no hard facts that the C4 Corvettes in Pro-Touring trim would either dominate or not dominate against other vehicles fully prepared to the extent of the Pro-Touring rules, I believe the excluded cars should not be excluded until those facts are proved otherwise. The C4 Corvette or any car should not be excluded or reclassed until those facts are proven.

Oops, I forgot about the Cuda. 1965-1974 the weight range is 2855-3300 pounds.

Tomwheels - I would like to apologize for being inconsiderate. I just left Cozymel's on LA Jolla Village Drive and I should have invited you to join my wife and I for dinner and we could have exchanged some information regarding the SCCA CAM program. I would have even picked up the tab. Oh well, maybe next time when I'm in the area.

[nokones]

corvettes and vipers have the biggest advantage with their weight distribution. the engine is behind the front axle. that is really the one modification that is no able to be copied into a traditional muscle car configuration and that gives them a huge advantage. i would suspect that is why they are excluded from a class designed around muscle cars.

I agree the Corvette weight distribution is an advantage over the traditional muscle cars I am not suggesting that the excluded cars run in the same class with the traditional muscle cars. I am asking that SCCA let the excluded cars run in the "S" sub class with the Cobra. Bruce and Scott do not object to the excluded cars running in S. A matter fact they are welcoming the competition. If the excluded cars are dominant cars in S then create a new class for the excluded cars so the Corvettes and Vipers can compete together so everyone can run.

I am still trying to understand why the new Chevrolet SS and the late model GTOs get to run in the Contemporary sub-class.

[SSLance]

I'll get my Saturday morning rant on here, then head to the garage to work on my car.

Frankly, I do not believe the SCCA is interested in making any of the CAM classes competitive for the participants. It appears that they are only interested in drawing as many of the Good Guys type, pre 1972 muscle cars to their specialty events to run in CAM-T. Everything else CAM related is just noise to them.

Last fall when the rules for the Pro Solo invitational and CAM classes at Nationals were announced, this is how they described CAM-C

CAM – C will be a “test the waters” class to see if there is a need or desire to have a class for contemporary Muscle cars. The CAM – C (Contemporary)will include all coupe/sedans and pony cars newer than CAM - T, plus C4 Corvettes (C5-7 Corvettes not eligible)

More CAM-C cars registered for Nationals than T and S combined.

The fact that in 2015 they classed a 1985 Monte Carlo with almost identical suspension architecture, weight and body design to a 1967 GTO with a 2011 Camaro or a late model GTO, SS or any other late model Muscle car proves this. They are not interested in making a competitive class for anything other than the pre-72 pony car type body styles.

The only way I see to change that way of thinking is for the late model cars to show up in droves to the SCCA events and convince them that we are here to stay. I've tried everything else I can to convince them otherwise to no avail.

\rant off

[DesertFox]

Frankly, I do not believe the SCCA is interested in making any of the CAM classes competitive for the participants. It appears that they are only interested in drawing as many of the Good Guys type, pre 1972 muscle cars to their specialty events to run in CAM-T. Everything else CAM related is just noise to them.

Ding Ding Ding.. we have a winner.

[rjsolo]

Yes, I am very well aware of the C4 specs and the other non-Corvette type vehicles performance is not a match to a Corvette. However, we are not talking about the stock or even the street prepared category. We are talking about a category where there are no rules in regards any performance modification. We are talking Pro-Touring rules, meaning any performance modification is OK to run with. So, I believe that you can dial in any car with the right suspension mods and tires that will compete with a Corvette. It may take a little more money because a Mustang II and an AMX will definitely need a lot of mods.

If anybody runs with a stock type suspension in any Pro-Touring type class they would not be competitive in any car. It will cost well over $10,000 for a competitive suspension package for any car to compete in a Pro-Touring class. I am sure the Detroit Speeds Engineering, ridetech, Chris Alston, and Mike Maier, Inc. type shops can build a killer suspension package for just about any car that will be competitive in full Pro-Touring trim.

Also, the Mustang II is in the 2750 pound range and the AMX is in the 3100 pound range. The 89 Corvette weighs in at 3229. These weights are in stock trim. Since I am in a heavy fat car, I would be a little concern running against those 2 vehicles since they are lighter than my Corvette.

So, I find it hard to believe that the 2 cars mentioned modified to the full extent of the Pro-Touring rules would be overly dominated by a C4 Corvette with the same skilled driver.

.

Hi,

The C4 has proven very quick in SCCA AX. So much so that in the fastest modified street tire class, Street Tire Ultimate (STU), the SCCA banned the C4, while allowing the C5! Also the need to spend $10K on a Protouring car suspension to compete with a stockish C4, doesn't sound fair.

I'm with Brian on separating out the newer ABS cars. It's also disheartening that the SCCA changed the 2014 CAM-S weight limit from 3,000lbs to 2,600lbs. Some of us where building cars to the 3,000 rules. For instance, C3 vettes weight 3,250 - 3,500 lbs. Even with an aluminum engine, a street-able C3 is a challenge to get below 3,000lbs. Maybe CAM-S could include the newer cars, and lighter sports cars like the Cobra, but move the classic heavy sports cars to CAM-T? Or raise the weight limit back up to 2,800-3,000, and the light cars could add ballast. In AX weight is a very important factor.

Rick

[nokones]

Yes, I am very well aware of the C4 specs and the other non-Corvette type vehicles performance is not a match to a Corvette. However, we are not talking about the stock or even the street prepared category. We are talking about a category where there are no rules in regards any performance modification. We are talking Pro-Touring rules, meaning any performance modification is OK to run with. So, I believe that you can dial in any car with the right suspension mods and tires that will compete with a Corvette. It may take a little more money because a Mustang II and an AMX will definitely need a lot of mods.

If anybody runs with a stock type suspension in any Pro-Touring type class they would not be competitive in any car. It will cost well over $10,000 for a competitive suspension package for any car to compete in a Pro-Touring class. I am sure the Detroit Speeds Engineering, ridetech, Chris Alston, and Mike Maier, Inc. type shops can build a killer suspension package for just about any car that will be competitive in full Pro-Touring trim.

Also, the Mustang II is in the 2750 pound range and the AMX is in the 3100 pound range. The 89 Corvette weighs in at 3229. These weights are in stock trim. Since I am in a heavy fat car, I would be a little concern running against those 2 vehicles since they are lighter than my Corvette.

So, I find it hard to believe that the 2 cars mentioned modified to the full extent of the Pro-Touring rules would be overly dominated by a C4 Corvette with the same skilled driver.

.

Hi,

The C4 has proven very quick in SCCA AX. So much so that in the fastest modified street tire class, Street Tire Ultimate (STU), the SCCA banned the C4, while allowing the C5! Also the need to spend $10K on a Protouring car suspension to compete with a stockish C4, doesn't sound fair.

I'm with Brian on separating out the newer ABS cars. It's also disheartening that the SCCA changed the 2014 CAM-S weight limit from 3,000lbs to 2,600lbs. Some of us where building cars to the 3,000 rules. For instance, C3 vettes weight 3,250 - 3,500 lbs. Even with an aluminum engine, a street-able C3 is a challenge to get below 3,000lbs. Maybe CAM-S could include the newer cars, and lighter sports cars like the Cobra, but move the classic heavy sports cars to CAM-T? Or raise the weight limit back up to 2,800-3,000, and the light cars could add ballast. In AX weight is a very important factor.

Rick

Even the stockfish C4 will need to spend the same amount of money to be competitive in Pro-Touring trim. They're not exempt from spending the same amount of money.

[72BBSwinger]

I bet Tom doesnt have 10k in his entire Plymouth.

[ragtop1966conv]

SCCA just don't like American made cars. For many years SCCA's nickname has been FCCA (Foreign Car Club of America).