2020 SCCA CAM-T Allowed Cars

[Sleeper68]

Thoughts on the SCCA's decision to let in 1995-2002 Camaros and 1993-2004 Mustangs into CAMT?



I just went the the Champ Tour event in Bristol and all but 3 cars (14 entrants) were 1995-2002 cars. The car that won was a 4th gen Camaro ESP car and bested the fastest CAMC car by over 0.6 sec.

[F-Body International]

It's debatable.

Mustang suspension was generally the same for 1979-2004.
F-Body pretty much had 1967-1981 leaf spring and then 1982-2002 torque arm.

The main thing I think we need to consider is the 90's and early 2000's cars having ABS and Traction Control.

[gscherer78ta]

Most of the cars in CAM-T only have the sheet metal in common with what came from the factory. With modern engine swaps, modern transmission, engine controls, modern suspensions- these cars are newer than an original 2002 Fbody.

[Sleeper68]

Most of the cars in CAM-T only have the sheet metal in common with what came from the factory. With modern engine swaps, modern transmission, engine controls, modern suspensions- these cars are newer than an original 2002 Fbody.

That is true for some CAM cars but I have found that a large portion of the vintage cars are still on factory frames/subframes or use factory style suspensions. In addition many do not have LS/LT/modular swaps and still retain factory style engines. Even fewer have TC or ABS.

The issue I have is many of the vintage cars with minor geometry modifications, stock style suspensions, and factory engine topologies can run in no other class that the "unlimited" CAM series.

[SSLance]

It is not the direction I would have taken the classes, and I've been involved with it from the very beginning...but it is what it is.

Fact is, almost NONE of the cars running in T are built to the edge of the rules...and some of the very good T cars (and drivers) regularly raw time the C cars anyway.

Personally I see no reason to separate T and C, never did...even more so don't think so now. Run what you brung and see where you stack up.

[landstuhltaylor]

I've lurked here on and off for a while, figured I'd make an account to respond. That 4th gen is mine.

The car was broken for the entire tour so we were fighting to jury rig the throttle. It was slow for the tour. I normally beat Randy in his CAM-C car 1.5-2 seconds per day.

But the main point is that I think every single person who has an issue with my car doesn't understand the time or money that is in it. It looks like **** but that's because all the important parts can't be seen. Yes the stock front suspension geometry is very good but the rear is still the limiting factor. I've been developing that car for 5 years. If I had to start all over again and replicate it, it would cost me $30,000 not including the cost of buying a car or any labor. That's just the parts bill. And the motor is 100% stock internally aside from an oil pump and crank scraper/pan baffle. I've never added up how much I've spent on things that didn't work.

Eric Simmons result is representative of what you can expect for a ~$10k part list.

Not trying to argue one way or the other, just adding important relevant info.

[Sleeper68]

It is not the direction I would have taken the classes, and I've been involved with it from the very beginning...but it is what it is.

Fact is, almost NONE of the cars running in T are built to the edge of the rules...and some of the very good T cars (and drivers) regularly raw time the C cars anyway.

Personally I see no reason to separate T and C, never did...even more so don't think so now. Run what you brung and see where you stack up.

I agree. Most cars are nowhere near the edge of allowance (although I would not be surprised if the tube chassis cars come out to play in the near future). I also agree that the C and T cars should not be separate. Instead I would separate cars based on allowable mods (motor swap, tire size, full frame replacements, suspension topology, minimum weight, etc.) I think that would be a more fair and economical way to include most P-T cars and allow people to stay in budget.

I've lurked here on and off for a while, figured I'd make an account to respond. That 4th gen is mine.

The car was broken for the entire tour so we were fighting to jury rig the throttle. It was slow for the tour. I normally beat Randy in his CAM-C car 1.5-2 seconds per day.

But the main point is that I think every single person who has an issue with my car doesn't understand the time or money that is in it. It looks like **** but that's because all the important parts can't be seen. Yes the stock front suspension geometry is very good but the rear is still the limiting factor. I've been developing that car for 5 years. If I had to start all over again and replicate it, it would cost me $30,000 not including the cost of buying a car or any labor. That's just the parts bill. And the motor is 100% stock internally aside from an oil pump and crank scraper/pan baffle. I've never added up how much I've spent on things that didn't work.

Eric Simmons result is representative of what you can expect for a ~$10k part list.

Not trying to argue one way or the other, just adding important relevant info.

Oh there's no doubt you have a lot of money and time into that car. Both the car and yourself perform very well. Also, I could see the 8760s hiding out underneath.

[landstuhltaylor]

Oh there's no doubt you have a lot of money and time into that car. Both the car and yourself perform very well. Also, I could see the 8760s hiding out underneath.

Oh I'm not that baller, just 8300s. I also went the cheap way in the front with 7500 doubles. I just hate seeing people base arguments on the assumption that it's a 10k bucket of junkyard bolts.

Anyway, I agree that discussion needs to happen but I also know this was the logical conclusion. I wouldn't want to cut fenders on a clean 60s car to fit massive tires either. Unfortunately that's just what CAM is. The current two page rule sheet philosophy means that the disparity will always be there. So it can either be accepted as-is with some tweaks for whatever the vision is for the category or it turns into a full rule book that it was created to avoid. I personally think anything with a solid axle should be classed together and anything with an IRS in a separate class. Give them a weight penalty and run them heads up. Other people may have different opinions. But I don't think leaving it as-is is going to work in the long term. I know I'm not the target either way as I'll go where the competition is and chase tires when those other classes don't make numbers.

[dontlifttoshift]

Like I said on FB. Like Lance said years ago (and I disagreed at that point)

Combine T and C, break it out by front tire size. Big tire guys still get the builder class that they lust over. The small tire guys, the guys that the class was created for, get to be competitive without feeling they need to carve the car up.

[F-Body International]

Like I said on FB. Like Lance said years ago (and I disagreed at that point)

Combine T and C, break it out by front tire size. Big tire guys still get the builder class that they lust over. The small tire guys, the guys that the class was created for, get to be competitive without feeling they need to carve the car up.

I like your input here....I assume 275 vs 315/335 tire class?

[Sleeper68]

Like I said on FB. Like Lance said years ago (and I disagreed at that point)

Combine T and C, break it out by front tire size. Big tire guys still get the builder class that they lust over. The small tire guys, the guys that the class was created for, get to be competitive without feeling they need to carve the car up.

I think that is the compromise; although, I don't know if the CAM Gods will hear it. I'd say you would have to do a blanket max size on all four corners though. 275mm max for small tire seems reasonable since that is what most vintage muscle cars can fit without extensive mods.

I do like Devin's point of separating the IRS cars, but it seems most of the cars that have it from the factory (gen 5+ camaros, S550s, charger/challengers) are much heavier, assuming you aren't dealing with people like the Schoonmaker's.

[BonzoHansen]

Like I said on FB. Like Lance said years ago (and I disagreed at that point)

Combine T and C, break it out by front tire size. Big tire guys still get the builder class that they lust over. The small tire guys, the guys that the class was created for, get to be competitive without feeling they need to carve the car up.

I get that, its a great thought. But what about electronics - ABS, etc. I still think that matters. I've read other opinions IRS vs live axle. I get that too but am not on board as much.

i dont think there is a great universal answer.

[dontlifttoshift]

So far, it doesn't matter. It still comes down to four patches of rubber.......and how the driver manages them.


I haven't preached here in a while so here is where I am at. CAM should never be a jacket class, trophies should be ice cream, run what you brung and hope you brung enough but for gods sakes have a good time doing it. I firmly believe that regardless of what my car does, if I don't win, it is because someone outdrove me.

However.

As every racing series develops it changes, if we want to continue to capture the core of the OG CAM competitors that class was built for you have to make them feel like they still belong. If they feel outgunned before they even get to grid they won't show up and CAM will become just another SCCA class and no longer be the recruitment tool it was engineered to be.


275 and down, CAM Touring / 285 and up, CAM Comp No reason to factor in rear tires, you can only go as fast as the front will let you.

[gscherer78ta]

I like your input here....I assume 275 vs 315/335 tire class?

Good guys did this last year. Street Machine is max 275 tires, above that is the pro class. I think this kind of classing makes more sense then the mods kind of classing.

[F-Body International]

I think that is the compromise; although, I don't know if the CAM Gods will hear it. I'd say you would have to do a blanket max size on all four corners though. 275mm max for small tire seems reasonable since that is what most vintage muscle cars can fit without extensive mods.

I do like Devin's point of separating the IRS cars, but it seems most of the cars that have it from the factory (gen 5+ camaros, S550s, charger/challengers) are much heavier, assuming you aren't dealing with people like the Schoonmaker's.

The '03-'04 Mustang Cobra's have IRS..........and I have seen people on the internet install those IRS setups in '79-'04 Mustangs.

[SSLance]

So far, it doesn't matter. It still comes down to four patches of rubber.......and how the driver manages them.


I haven't preached here in a while so here is where I am at. CAM should never be a jacket class, trophies should be ice cream, run what you brung and hope you brung enough but for gods sakes have a good time doing it. I firmly believe that regardless of what my car does, if I don't win, it is because someone outdrove me.

However.

As every racing series develops it changes, if we want to continue to capture the core of the OG CAM competitors that class was built for you have to make them feel like they still belong. If they feel outgunned before they even get to grid they won't show up and CAM will become just another SCCA class and no longer be the recruitment tool it was engineered to be.


275 and down, CAM Touring / 285 and up, CAM Comp No reason to factor in rear tires, you can only go as fast as the front will let you.

Preach it brother... Sooner or later hopefully the powers that be will listen to those of us in the trenches...

Meanwhile, just keeping hurting the big tire car driver's feelings with your small tire car.

[dontlifttoshift]

It's my favorite thing to do.

One more thing, this was pitched to Raleigh last fall and dismissed at that time. I think he was just looking for support for what they already had planned as opposed to looking for input. Send an email. Don't say "I", don't talk about your car or you'll get a TYFYI for sure.

[Sleeper68]

So far, it doesn't matter. It still comes down to four patches of rubber.......and how the driver manages them.


I haven't preached here in a while so here is where I am at. CAM should never be a jacket class, trophies should be ice cream, run what you brung and hope you brung enough but for gods sakes have a good time doing it. I firmly believe that regardless of what my car does, if I don't win, it is because someone outdrove me.

However.

As every racing series develops it changes, if we want to continue to capture the core of the OG CAM competitors that class was built for you have to make them feel like they still belong. If they feel outgunned before they even get to grid they won't show up and CAM will become just another SCCA class and no longer be the recruitment tool it was engineered to be.


275 and down, CAM Touring / 285 and up, CAM Comp No reason to factor in rear tires, you can only go as fast as the front will let you.

Yes, tires, weight, driver. Since Solo has always been a driver competition, limits need to be on weight and tires. That bring up the other issue. CAM-C cars and CAM-T cars are very different. Good luck getting a 2005+ mustang or 2010+ camaro to 3000lbs, let alone 3300. Because of the weight differences I think C and T should be separate. Also alot of those newer cars come with 285s or 305s from the factory. Split tire sizes at 305, or could run em all together?
My proposition for C and T:

CAM-T TOUR: 275 max tire, 200tw, 3000lbs minimum
CAM-T PRO: 200tw, 3000lbs minimum

CAM-C TOUR: 285 max tire, 200 tw, 3350 lbs minimum
CAM-C PRO: 200 tw, 3350 lbs min

Good guys did this last year. Street Machine is max 275 tires, above that is the pro class. I think this kind of classing makes more sense then the mods kind of classing.

Great idea. Keeps it cheap for the little guy.

The '03-'04 Mustang Cobra's have IRS..........and I have seen people on the internet install those IRS setups in '79-'04 Mustangs.

Let em run it. I don't care to compete with an IRS car with TC/ABS if we have the same weight and tire limits.

[dontlifttoshift]

But now you turned two classes into four......and made it more complicated than it needs to be.

We don't want or need more classes.

[Sleeper68]

But now you turned two classes into four......and made it more complicated than it needs to be.

We don't want or need more classes.

How would one solve the weight disparity issue then?