SCCA is adding a class just for us!

[Derek69SS]

I only saw a rough draft, and offered my opinion for a few changes to a friend who is on the STAC.
I do not know exactly what would have been different in the final proposal. Based on what I saw, most of the limitations were pretty generous to street-friendly bolt-on type modified cars. 95% may be high, but I think fairly accurate for the cars within the year range given.



I won't say much more, because I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to talk about it... The year range that I saw proposed was 1955-1978 and included any car outside that year limit which shared the same platform as a car within it. (Camaro up to 81 for example). There were other things that kept it "musclecar" rather than "sportscar" oriented, such as requiring a solid rear axle and the car had to be minimum 4-passenger (except trucks). Tire size limitations and engine/trans allowances were quite generous.

[IndyDave]

Oh brother.

A national class for PT type cars has not been killed. Before a national class to exist there has to be interest and a field of cars running in SCCA Solo at the regional level first. Traditionally, a national class develops from trends happening at regional and when it existed, divisional competition. Regions are seeing more PT type cars but have struggled to provide them consistent classing. So the goal in Topeka was to come up with a way to help regions who have these cars at their events and give those competitors some consistency in classing. SCCA looked at several options, all were taken seriously and weighed. It was decided that instead of bringing a detailed rule set that they would opt for a simple rule set that mimicked rule sets that already exist for PT cars running in other organizations. The thought is the people the class is meant to attract will be familiar with SCCA's rules because they already operate under similar rules. What's so outrageous about that? CAM's rules are Goodguy's rules with a minimum weight rule added. Goodguy's Autocross is the largest sanctioner of autocross events for PT cars. Simple. No skull-doggery, no conspiracies, no back door politicking, just decisions made by people who did a lot of footwork, attended a lot of PT car events and talked to a lot of people involved in the PT world on what they wanted to see SCCA do if it wanted to attract them to SCCA Solo events. For now, CAM is the answer. It's not a perfect answer but neither were any of the other options.

[j-rho]

...The thought is the people the class is meant to attract will be familiar with SCCA's rules because they already operate under similar rules. What's so outrageous about that? ...

They are very different Dave. All the non-SCCA places have the "we reserve the right to exclude any car that doesn't fit in with the spirit of our event" - a car built just to maximize performance, could be excluded on a whim. That is the opposite of how SCCA rules work...SCCA wants people to prepare themselves to the (legal) limit of the rules, because that's what makes for good competition. In the P-T world, people are not accustomed to having "limits".

It'll be easy for parties to be happy during this honeymoon. It's when reality starts to settle in, and the foundation of the relationship gets tested, that its shortcomings come to light. As a basis for long-term success, there are some serious flaws in what's been proposed, and a lot of the heartache to come, could have been avoided with a just a few simple things that I've already presented.

I know everyone involved (including yourself!) is doing their best and acting in what they believe is the club and membership's best interest. Some of us still can't help but be disappointed in the way it's being handled though.

[dontlifttoshift]

So the STAC was involved?

[j-rho]

So the STAC was involved?

Donny, I've spent the last 10 years in continuous service of either the STAC (Street Touring Advisory Committee) or the SMAC (Street Modified Advisory Committee) - both relatively new categories that were created around the time I started autocrossing (2001).

In both cases, the categories started off as too open in some areas, and a lot of the competitor pain around ensuing rules changes, were over takebacks. Recall the STAC update/backdate and aero debates, and the bevy of weight adjustments in SM.

The relatively unlimited nature of SM bears some resemblance to CAM. The understanding everyone should have is, when you are allowed essentially unlimited control over the chassis and can make enough power, the smallest (widthxlength), lowest, best balanced, and lightest (or at least lowest pounds-per-mm-of-tire) car will win. A lot of the SM adjustments were done to neuter platforms (like the Porsche 914) that had tremendous inherent advantages over target cars (Corvette, RX7) in these areas.

The takeaway for CAM is you can provide the unlimited modification stage you want, but you have to control the resulting values in those four areas to make sure the right cars end up on top. CAM already has a limited weight; add in something to limit rear weight bias (as was figured out decades ago in CP), ride height (these are supposed to be streetable cars?), and overall size (set minimums for wheelbase and track width that accommodate the meat of the target car base - classic pony/muscle cars - but nothing smaller) - and you have a winner. Oh, and allow period-correct stuff but otherwise no real aero.

You could easily expand inclusion for oddball (too small, too new, etc.) stuff by penalizing in raw weight, or pounds/mm-of-tire, and continue to use that as a tuning knob to keep that portion of the audience engaged, while ensuring your high-volume target vehicles remain perceived as the "cars to have".

That was the basis for a class called STP (Street Touring Ponycar) that I proposed...unfortunately CAM was already too far along and it got killed. If CAM is to make it, I suggest it will end up looking just like the STP I presented...but only after several years and lots of new-to-SCCA-person heartburn.

The question is, if CAM had been proposed as STP, with its extra 4-5 rules, would those few simple rules have created such a negative reaction, it never would have gotten off the ground and failed? I imagine that's what Dave and others believed. I get what's being tried here, but feel it's disingenuous of the club to present this to the largely non-initiated as a new place for them; they are not likely to understand the distinctions between regional and national classes, and may come to find out the hard way, after having expended personal resources in pursuit of increased competitiveness in a venue (the top of our sport) that doesn't actually yet cater to them.

[dontlifttoshift]

Jason, why didn't any of this go out for member approval like other rules changes then? I don't understand why seemingly simple things, like a steering wheel allowance, take months and months of public debate and letter writing but an entire new class was created under the radar and put into the rule book with out any member feedback. Even as a regional only class.

[j-rho]

To get into FT, has to go through SEB. SEB was handed CAM by their bosses... such is how it goes.

[dontlifttoshift]

Got it. Thanks.

[GrabberGT]

Texas Region SCCA's CAM rules:

• There will be a split in the classing (2 classes). CAM (Classic American Muscle) cars that are 1972 and older. MAM (Modern American Muscle) 1973 and newer cars.

• No weight restriction in either class.

• Exclusion list: C4, C5, C6 and C7 Corvettes are excluded from these classes.

All other restrictions, rules and safety requirements are as noted in the link and will apply for our 2014 TX Region CAM & MAM class.

…tell your local muscle car guy he’s got a place to autocross for 2014!!

[Gratefuldiver]

Texas Region SCCA's CAM rules:

• There will be a split in the classing (2 classes). CAM (Classic American Muscle) cars that are 1972 and older. MAM (Modern American Muscle) 1973 and newer cars.

• No weight restriction in either class.

• Exclusion list: C4, C5, C6 and C7 Corvettes are excluded from these classes.

All other restrictions, rules and safety requirements are as noted in the link and will apply for our 2014 TX Region CAM & MAM class.

…tell your local muscle car guy he’s got a place to autocross for 2014!!

Those are nice rules. There are no limits in the STL club and 95% of the cars that run that class are 1990 and newer. Not a fan of it but I don't want to be the guy that makes a big deal about it.

[DTM Racing]

Very cool.
Unfortunately yesterday we had the issue with the rules as written that we knew we would. A driver who is normally not competitive in SS, tried to class his newer Z06 in CAM. Luckily a few of us caught it in grid and he was talked to by the regional chair, since our CAM is limited to pre-79. After speaking with the guy, he knew exactly what he was doing and had hope he could "slip by" and nab a trophy.
Other than that, we had a great 2nd event; with 10 Drivers and 8 (legal) cars.

[IndyDave]

Texas Region SCCA's CAM rules:

• There will be a split in the classing (2 classes). CAM (Classic American Muscle) cars that are 1972 and older. MAM (Modern American Muscle) 1973 and newer cars.

• No weight restriction in either class.

• Exclusion list: C4, C5, C6 and C7 Corvettes are excluded from these classes.

All other restrictions, rules and safety requirements are as noted in the link and will apply for our 2014 TX Region CAM & MAM class.

Seems like reasonable additions and deletions to the rules. Personally, the weight rule is going to be hard to enforce locally. Who's going to drag out a set of scales for one class? How many Regions even own a set of scales? Why exclude C4's? Those things SUCK! A lot of fun to beat up on though

Unfortunately yesterday we had the issue with the rules as written that we knew we would. A driver who is normally not competitive in SS, tried to class his newer Z06 in CAM. Luckily a few of us caught it in grid and he was talked to by the regional chair, since our CAM is limited to pre-79. After speaking with the guy, he knew exactly what he was doing and had hope he could "slip by" and nab a trophy.

And that's how you handle that situation. Even if you didn't have the model / year rule, there is nothing wrong with doing that. Just because the car may be "legal" for the class, Region officials have every right ask members to behave with good sportsmanship and not trophy raid a class just because they can. If the member wants to be a jerk about it, they can be asked to go away until they can exhibit good sportsmanship.

[SSLance]

This is pretty big news that just broke...


http://www.scca.com/news/index.cfm?cid=51948

[Ron Sutton]

This is pretty big news that just broke...


http://www.scca.com/news/index.cfm?cid=51948

Oh wow! CAM as a National class at the finals

It just got real competitive. Game on!

[SSLance]

I have updated my registration...looks like I'm first...

Who else will join me in the new CAM classes at SCCA Nationals?


Classic American Muscle Contemporary 1 ENTRIES
# Name Year Make Sponsor Hometown
24 Hamilton, Lance 1985 Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS ridetech, Ron Sutton Race Technology, Exessive Engineering, Smithville, MO