What would a USCA pro-touring class look like??

[camcojb]

The 2014 USCA Optima Ultimate Street Car Invitational was awesome. Had a great time, and if you have a chance you really need to attend these events.

In the finals it's "run what you brung"; no classes for individual cars. But what would a pro-touring class look like if there were classes for competitors? I'd love to hear your thoughts. :thumbsup:

[SSLance]

I've been involved with this discussion on the SCCA level in regards to their CAM class.

IMHO, a tire width rule is the simplest easiest way to separate the cars. My proposal was for 2 classes, one 275 series tires and under, the other for any car with wider tires. In their case the 3rd class for the 2 seaters is also appropriate and I don't have a problem with it either.

It really doesn't matter how much power you make or handle you have tuned into your car...if it's only got so much tire to grip the track, that's as fast as you are going to go. I see no need to further separate the body styles, model year, extent of mods...any further than tire size.

[camcojb]

I've been involved with this discussion on the SCCA level in regards to their CAM class.

IMHO, a tire width rule is the simplest easiest way to separate the cars. My proposal was for 2 classes, one 275 series tires and under, the other for any car with wider tires. In their case the 3rd class for the 2 seaters is also appropriate and I don't have a problem with it either.

It really doesn't matter how much power you make or handle you have tuned into your car...if it's only got so much tire to grip the track, that's as fast as you are going to go. I see no need to further separate the body styles, model year, extent of mods...any further than tire size.
I think you need more than tire size. You put identical sizes on any 69 Camaro you want and a newer Vette, and with similar drivers and power the Vette wins every time. There's such a difference in aero, track width, center of gravity, etc. that the older car cannot make up the difference.

Here's a good example. Take a new ZR1 and "Jackass". They have identical engines, wheels/tires/brakes. Put Mark in both cars and he'll be much faster on the track in the new ZR1.

[dontlifttoshift]

I don't think a meaningful discussion can be had about classing without clearly presenting the problem that one may be trying to solve with classing.

I believe simplest is best. I also believe the fastest driver will win 95% of the time.

[Al Moreno]

I also believe the fastest driver will win 95% of the time.

At the end of the day, these cars dont drive themselves. So I agree with you 100%!

[SSLance]

I think you need more than tire size. You put identical sizes on any 69 Camaro you want and a newer Vette, and with similar drivers and power the Vette wins every time. There's such a difference in aero, track width, center of gravity, etc. that the older car cannot make up the difference.

Here's a good example. Take a new ZR1 and "Jackass". They have identical engines, wheels/tires/brakes. Put Mark in both cars and he'll be much faster on the track in the new ZR1.


I don't disagree...but the Vette is a two seater. Let the two seaters run with the two seaters.

I see no reason to put my car on 275s in a different class than a 1969 Camaro on 275s. And a 1985 Fox Body on 315s should be in a class with a 1967 Camaro on 315s.

Weight limits and full interior restrictions can also come into play, but most guys with muscle cars on 275s are going to be the same guys that won't cut their fenders for wider tires nor strip their interiors for weight savings.

[camcojb]

I don't think a meaningful discussion can be had about classing without clearly presenting the problem that one may be trying to solve with classing.

I believe simplest is best. I also believe the fastest driver will win 95% of the time.
What we're looking to discuss is how to set up rules for a pro-touring class. There are huge advantages to run late model vehicles in this event if there's only one class. I'd like to see the older muscle cars we love and build be able to compete with each other. If your only goal is to win it all then you'll want to build a late model Vette, F-body, etc.

Yes a great driver in an older car can win, several have done that. But now that there's great drivers in all the cars the older stuff is much less competitive simply by the reasons I mentioned earlier. By the way, I am not against the later model cars competing. It was great seeing Danny and the others hauling butt on the track. I'm just afraid we'll lose the muscle car guys if they feel there's no way to openly compete.

[Spiffav8]

Optima is always a lot of fun and it's been interesting to see it evolve over the years. The first few years Mary Pozzi was setting up the Autocross track and the field of cars was primarily made up of Pro Touring builds. DSE's rig was the biggest out there by far and we all just parked at the track or in the pits. When I think back to those events and compare to the field of competitors/cars run this years it's obvious that PT cars don't really stand a chance. IMHO it seems wrong to push the cars and people who helped start it all, out of the running. Cars from the PT community are a huge draw. I would like to see something along the rules put out by SCCA. It would even things up a lot and make for a better event.

http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44726

[camcojb]

I don't disagree...but the Vette is a two seater. Let the two seaters run with the two seaters.

I see no reason to put my car on 275s in a different class than a 1969 Camaro on 275s. And a 1985 Fox Body on 315s should be in a class with a 1967 Camaro on 315s.

Weight limits and full interior restrictions can also come into play, but most guys with muscle cars on 275s are going to be the same guys that won't cut their fenders for wider tires nor strip their interiors for weight savings.You didn't mention anything about two-seaters being a different class. ;) But I'll give you another example...

DSE's 5th gen Camaro against their own second gen Camaro. Both Camaros, put the same size tires on both (may already be the same, not sure) and the aero, track width, and center of gravity has the 5th gen quite a bit faster on the track. I don't remember the exact times, but DSE's 5th gen was a few seconds faster than their second gen on the road course. I believe they're similar power and both very capable drivers, but the advantages to the later model car are very apparent.

[Jr]

1. Driver experience- plays a huge role in the overall class
2. Cut off year for vehicles- separate the present day super cars from classic iron with technological upgrades.

[SSLance]

You didn't mention anything about two-seaters being a different class. ;) But I'll give you another example...

DSE's 5th gen Camaro against their own second gen Camaro. Both Camaros, put the same size tires on both (may already be the same, not sure) and the aero, track width, and center of gravity has the 5th gen quite a bit faster on the track. I don't remember the exact times, but DSE's 5th gen was a few seconds faster than their second gen on the road course. I believe they're similar power and both very capable drivers, but the advantages to the later model car are very apparent.

In that example, the 5th gen is a stipped interior race car and the 2nd Gen is a full interior car race car. The 5th Gen may be a touch faster than that 2nd Gen, but it's not night and day faster like if it was paired against an older muscle car on 275s.

A driver change in either of those two Camaros will make more a difference in times ran than mods to an older car on small tires ever will.

Let me put it this way, how many of the older muscle car/PT cars that you are afraid will be run off if they can't compete...run a front tire larger than 275?

[SSLance]

Let me put it this way, how many of the older muscle car/PT cars that you are afraid will be run off if they can't compete...run a front tire larger than 275?


Or... Put both of those cars on 275s...and see then how they run against one another or the rest of the PT cars out there.

[DBasher]

Two classes, a real CAM1 and CAM2. One is stock style suspension with bolt ons and what not, OEM "style". The other being more of an unlimited with altered suspension points, torque arms, non factory 4 links, mini tubs...yada,yada.

The way I read it is CAM is Classic American Muscle, to me that's mainly 60-70's muscle cars. Let's put the classic and muscle back in the class. Put a cap on the year, say mid 70's....Detroit didn't produce any muscle after than anyhow.

[dontlifttoshift]

I don't disagree...but the Vette is a two seater. Let the two seaters run with the two seaters.



Define what a rear seat is. My Mustang won't have a rear seat. I don't think Marks car has a rear seat, so now they are 2 seaters.

What we're looking to discuss is how to set up rules for a pro-touring class. There are huge advantages to run late model vehicles in this event if there's only one class.

Define late model. When is an old car not an old car anymore? It is entirely feasible to stretch a 69 Camaro over a C7 Z06, where does that run then? or you could just swap in the ABS and carbon brakes.......


I'd like to see the older muscle cars we love and build be able to compete with each other.

Me too, there should be a series for that.:poke:

The USC in OUSCI stands for Ultimate Street Car as it always has, and the O stands for Optima, not Old. The design points used to carry the older cars alot more than they used too, but even back then Danny still won in a late Corvette. Remember when average times and outstanding paint/interior could put you near the top of the overall standings. Where would Penny have finished this past weekend?

Don't get me wrong, late models are awesome parts cars and much more financially feasible, the easy button. Be honest, 40K gets you a stock, solid 69 Camaro shell and a stack of DSE parts or a C5 Z06 with coilovers, bigger wheels and tires and aero......not hard to figure out which car is faster per dollar.

So maybe the answer is not another class, but a little more weight for the custom things. Maybe more than few points should separate the guys who bolts (or pays to bolt) stuff on a latemodel vs. the guy who bleeds (or pays someone to bleed) on his car to bring the technology 30 or 40 years into the present. Pro Touring guy has to do a lot to bring his car up to par with just a stock late model, that should count for something, right?

More classes is not the answer, it never is. A slight restructure could fix 90% of the issue here. Previous ramblings aside, if you are going to run 3 classes all year, AWD, GT2, and GT3, then it really does make sense to do the same for the finale.

[SSLance]

You didn't mention anything about two-seaters being a different class. ;) But I'll give you another example...

DSE's 5th gen Camaro against their own second gen Camaro. Both Camaros, put the same size tires on both (may already be the same, not sure) and the aero, track width, and center of gravity has the 5th gen quite a bit faster on the track. I don't remember the exact times, but DSE's 5th gen was a few seconds faster than their second gen on the road course. I believe they're similar power and both very capable drivers, but the advantages to the later model car are very apparent.


Actual results from Gateway 2014 between those two cars.

Speed Stop
2nd Kyle Tucker 77 0:13.231
6th Ryan Mathews78 0:13.369

AutoX
2nd Kyle Tucker 77 0:38.051
5th Ryan Mathews78 0:38.669

Hot Laps
3rd Ryan Mathews78 1:9.658
5th Kyle Tucker 77 1:12.502

Design
6th Kyle Tucker 77 22
25th Ryan Mathews78 17.067


Total
2nd Kyle Tucker 77 107
5th Ryan Mathews78 93.067


Looks to me like the PT car won that battle...

[SSLance]

Now I'll add in the results from my 275 shod car to the mix.


Speed Stop
2nd Kyle Tucker 77 0:13.231
6th Ryan Mathews78 0:13.369
14th Lance 57 0:13.756


AutoX
2nd Kyle Tucker 77 0:38.051
5th Ryan Mathews78 0:38.669
17th Lance 57 0:40.354


Hot Laps
3rd Ryan Mathews78 1:9.658
5th Kyle Tucker 77 1:12.502
18th Lance 57 1:19.095

Design
6th Kyle Tucker 77 22
20th Lance 57 19.767
25th Ryan Mathews78 17.067


Total
2nd Kyle Tucker 77 107
5th Ryan Mathews78 93.067
17th Lance 57 68.497



Also...
I was under the impression that there was a GT2, GT3, and AWD winner at OUSCI...is that not true?

[PTAddict]

This is going to be tricky. Making a simple rule like:

Must have a VIN and model year prior to 1980

is a starting point. Only thing about that is it still leaves the door open for people to build full-on tube frame composite-bodied race cars with lights. You may or may not care that the bar to be competitive continually demands more money and more specialization. Even a car like Hobaugh's 73 Camaro, beautiful as it is, is a stretch by most people's definition of "street car". So where do you draw the line, if anywhere?

BTW, anyone who regularly runs their PT car in the advanced classes of HPDE events is under no illusion that the driver can make up the difference against a stripped, fully modded 2900 lb C5 or C6 Vette. Physics is physics.

[SSLance]

Here's my point then I'll let it be...

None of these PT cars in question were fast from the factory, they all need work to be fast, some more than others but they all need work. They can all be made to be fast...fast enough that driver skill is going to put one above the other taking the car out of the equation for the most part.

The difference between being fast and very fast is about 30% car and 70% driver. Classes can't do anything about the driver, so working with just that 30% factor, the biggest part of that is going to be tire...how much of it is gripping the track. That's where the rubber meets the road. If you don't want to end up with 287 different classes for PT cars (and who does) the main way to separate them should be by tire size. ANY of the makes, models and years being discussed can be made to be just as fast as the rest of them, there is no need to try to separate them out by make, model, or year (other than putting the factory two seaters in their own class).

I don't want to exclude the "Outlaw" cars with super wide rubber and stripped interiors, I just don't think they should be running with those of us with stock interiors and rubber that fits under stock fenders.

[LS7 Z/28]

I really don't think separating protouring cars based on their tire sizes is the right thing to do. Obviously it helps to have more tire, so basically if A guy wants more tire, then it's time to do some mini-tubing and flaring. If you're going to separate the PT cars from the rest of the cars you really can't get too crazy in splitting them up into even more classes, then everything really becomes a mess...

What Jody is trying to get at are the big differences between the vettes, Porsches and Ricers in comparison to the heavy american iron. Traction control, ABS, aero, stability control etc. are all too much for most talented drivers to overcome because of the fact that those cars that finish well not only have all of those aids, but they also are generally lighter and have shorter wheelbases. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that on tight autocrosses and brake stop courses, a little lightweight car is going to have an advantage.

The only time the larger cars have an even playing field would be the road course. Hence why the 5th generation Camaro's and some Pro Touring cars generally do well on the big track with a good driver and good equipment.

How about instead of GT2K, GT3K and AWD you have...

PT, Pro Touring '79 or '89??? and older. Domestics.

AWD, same as before.

GT all other entrants.

By the way, this thread will probably not accomplish much. There are way too many alpha males and type A personalities with bright ideas and big egos to ever come to an agreement on much of anything, but maybe it will spark some type of debate within the Optima group. :stirthepot:

[dontlifttoshift]

The white monster 5th gen was running on 285s last time I looked, that may have changed.

Lance, you make no mention of weight are you just planning on staying with the current under/over 3,000 pounds and then adding under/over 275 mm tires?

[Ron in SoCal]

This is going to be tricky. Making a simple rule like:

Must have a VIN and model year prior to 1980

is a starting point. Only thing about that is it still leaves the door open for people to build full-on tube frame composite-bodied race cars with lights. You may or may not care that the bar to be competitive continually demands more money and more specialization. Even a car like Hobaugh's 73 Camaro, beautiful as it is, is a stretch by most people's definition of "street car". So where do you draw the line, if anywhere?

BTW, anyone who regularly runs their PT car in the advanced classes of HPDE events is under no illusion that the driver can make up the difference against a stripped, fully modded 2900 lb C5 or C6 Vette. Physics is physics.

Totally agree with PTA above.

The part in bold was evidenced this weekend.

[camcojb]

Let me put it this way... the older cars won't be competitive on the road course. The styling portion may equalize things a bit. The AWD's have an advantage on the speed stop and autocross much of the time (depending on course length and layout), with the late models in the mix. Muscle cars can win here, but not with yesterdays line up of cars. Where do the older muscle cars shine?

[camcojb]

Also...
I was under the impression that there was a GT2, GT3, and AWD winner at OUSCI...is that not true?
That is not true. In the qualifiers they are that way, the finals are all one class.

[camcojb]

In that example, the 5th gen is a stipped interior race car and the 2nd Gen is a full interior car race car. The 5th Gen may be a touch faster than that 2nd Gen, but it's not night and day faster like if it was paired against an older muscle car on 275s.

A driver change in either of those two Camaros will make more a difference in times ran than mods to an older car on small tires ever will.

Let me put it this way, how many of the older muscle car/PT cars that you are afraid will be run off if they can't compete...run a front tire larger than 275?
The fifth gen is still heavier than the second gen I think, but I'm not positive of that. Both are great drivers, and the fifth gen was several seconds faster on the road course yesterday. I don't think the fifth gen had bigger tires, they both had similar tire widths, put them both on 275's and I don't expect any change in which will be faster.

[camcojb]

Guys,

This is not a complaint thread. I loved the event, Jimi and USCA did a GREAT job, and this one was as fun as all the others I've attended.

I was just wondering what you guys thought of having a muscle car class, and what rules/year cutoffs, etc. would there be if there was one. I think with the current rules and competition, if you want to win the whole deal you're going to be better off with something much past our muscle car era. Although it's cool to see the protouring cars be competitive, I think it's reached the point competition-wise that they're at a big disadvantage against the current group of cars competing.

I do NOT want to see the newer stuff eliminated, they're the best of the best. Watching the Evo launch in the autocross and win the event or watching Danny Popp just drive away from the fastest group in his 2003 Vette was awesome. Just thought it may be cool to have an older car class, say pre-1980 or whatever.

[SSLance]

Lance, you make no mention of weight are you just planning on staying with the current under/over 3,000 pounds and then adding under/over 275 mm tires?

Either that or bump the minimum up to 3300-3400 pounds for the 275 and under class. It won't really matter as most of those cars with full interiors and stock sheet metal weigh over 3500 pounds anyway. Bumping it up a little may discourage cars like the white monster from throwing some interior panels in, bolting on some 275s and running that class.





By the way, this thread will probably not accomplish much. There are way too many alpha males and type A personalities with bright ideas and big egos to ever come to an agreement on much of anything, but maybe it will spark some type of debate within the Optima group.


I disagree. I know for a fact that the SCCA is highly interested in this conversation and was on hand last weekend at OUSCI working with the USCA folks as well as the Good Guys folks trying to find a common ground for all three series to work together so we (you and I) can build cars and take to all three event types and run competitively.



Where do the older muscle cars shine?

Against other muscle cars on similarly sized rubber...in all three event types ;)

[camcojb]

Against other muscle cars on similarly sized rubber...in all three event types ;)
Yeah, but they're not racing against other muscle cars for the title, they're racing against everything there. ;)

[Al Moreno]

The fifth gen is still heavier than the second gen I think, but I'm not positive of that. Both are great drivers, and the fifth gen was several seconds faster on the road course yesterday. I don't think the fifth gen had bigger tires, they both had similar tire widths, put them both on 275's and I don't expect any change in which will be faster.

Jody, if I remember correct, Kyle had told me the fifth gen was 3700 plus lbs. They were trying to look for ways to drop weight as its still was a pretty heavy car. So I think your right the fifth gen is heavier but I'm not sure.

[ironworks]

The 5th gen comes from the factory in a much closer representation of what is being raced at the event. About 20% of the original 2nd gen camaro remains and the 20% is the body and ornamental stuff. The 5th gen is nearly stock on comparison.

Believe it or not automotive engineers have learned a little bit since 1970.

You can only bolt so much stuff on a car to go that fast. Now it will take a complete slate requiring massive fabrication to even be competitive top 10 wise.

I'm gonna guess this will be the equivalent to Hot Rod Magazines Drag week Unlimited class very soon.

[SSLance]

Guys,

This is not a complaint thread. I loved the event, Jimi and USCA did a GREAT job, and this one was as fun as all the others I've attended.

I was just wondering what you guys thought of having a muscle car class, and what rules/year cutoffs, etc. would there be if there was one. I think with the current rules and competition, if you want to win the whole deal you're going to be better off with something much past our muscle car era. Although it's cool to see the protouring cars be competitive, I think it's reached the point competition-wise that they're at a big disadvantage against the current group of cars competing.

I do NOT want to see the newer stuff eliminated, they're the best of the best. Watching the Evo launch in the autocross and win the event or watching Danny Popp just drive away from the fastest group in his 2003 Vette was awesome. Just thought it may be cool to have an older car class, say pre-1980 or whatever.


I agree completely. They want us to come and participate in their events and we want a place to run and feel like we are at least on the same playing field as others. There has to be a way to make it all work and I'm certain the powers that be are crunching numbers to make it work.

There is no reason that the factory late model cars, stockish appearing muscle (PT) cars, and the outlaw over the top race cars on street tires can't all attend the same types of events and share time running together. We are all there for the same common goal. The ruleset just needs a bit of fine tuning to level the fields a bit.

[PTAddict]

The tire size thing is a non-starter, IMO.

I've used my traqmate to log data in my car, vs. a track prepped C5 vette, both on Hoosier tires. Mine were 335 rear vs. 315 for the Vette, but otherwise identical. The Vette consistently generated an additional .1g or more lateral acceleration, even though the overall balance of my car was arguably more neutral. There could be multiple factors behind that, but you have to start with 500 lb weight advantage, lower CG, and wider track/wheelbase ratio.

Driver can't fix that.

Agree with Jody that I'm not complaining about the new cars - love to see them and try to compete with them. It's just a question of whether we want PT cars to become a permanent underclass in events like these ...

[camcojb]

I agree completely. They want us to come and participate in their events and we want a place to run and feel like we are at least on the same playing field as others. There has to be a way to make it all work and I'm certain the powers that be are crunching numbers to make it work.

There is no reason that the factory late model cars, stockish appearing muscle (PT) cars, and the outlaw over the top race cars on street tires can't all attend the same types of events and share time running together. We are all there for the same common goal. The ruleset just needs a bit of fine tuning to level the fields a bit.
Yep. "thumbsup: Jimi is committed to this event, and I know he'll continue to improve it. We're getting some ideas here for possible changes to equalize things, or possibly a separate class. I'll make sure he gets our ideas at least for additional input on whatever they decide to do in the future.

It was a GREAT time and I really liked the venue change. Spring Mountain is a beautiful facility, but this has a lot more room and better for spectators in my opinion. I think it went very smooth for the first time with such a big change in venue and doubling of participants. USCA did a great job on this one.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Im all for open track day fun. Times, sure, bragging rights ok. But going out and pushing your abilities as far as driving and construction. Competition on a personal level.

Once competition gets heated it then becomes the guy who can spend the most, recieve the most training and who can do the most delelopment who will blow everyone out.

Once you start instituting rules to make it fair then it becomes who can bend the rules the most without going over and breaking them.

[SSLance]

That said...Rodney Prouty, Aaron Oberle, Dan Ballard, Dan Howe, Sam and Deb Farrington, Jeff Montgomery, and Jane Thurmond, are just a few of the guys and gals in regular "our type" muscle cars that went to OUSCI this year and from everything I've seen or heard, they had an absolutely fabulous time there. I've seen "Weekend of a lifetime" mentioned several times...

And I suppose that they all ran around mid pack once things were ironed out. All very capable drivers in well sorted out Street Cars... I can't wait for the opportunity to do just the same, regardless of the ruleset.

[57hemicuda]

The older I get the more I love anarchy. No more rules!!! When we started all this my biggest fear was a rule book like so many other forms of racing.

If its not the Feds its local government telling me what I have to do. Don't make my hobby the same way. Run what you brung, if it ain't enough then too bad. Take it home and make it faster.

That being said, I started playing in these forums because of my love of Muscle Cars. I truly have no desire to watch late models and ricers race. I can see that any track day on any road course in the United States. What made Lat G and Pro Touring so cool was seeing some of the coolest, nicest Muscle Cars in the country get the crap kicked out of them. Don't know what the answer is but its not more rules. Just my 2 cents.

[dontlifttoshift]

If there were no pro touring cars back when OUSCI started, would it even exist as we know it today?

[Vince@Meanstreets]

If there were no pro touring cars back when OUSCI started, would it even exist as we know it today?

No doubt, I think the old cars bring the crowds. Just look at the One lap events.

[ArisESQ]

Not really sure I understand the purpose of having classes in a competition to find the "Ultimate Street Car."

If it's a competition to find the best street driven car, then the only restriction should be that the car is registered and passes all registration requirements.

I realize not having classes makes it a lot harder for a classic muscle car to be competitive against some of the newer contenders, or for people not wiling to chop up their fenders to fit wider tires... but why does that matter at all.

[ArisESQ]

The older I get the more I love anarchy. No more rules!!! When we started all this my biggest fear was a rule book like so many other forms of racing.

If its not the Feds its local government telling me what I have to do. Don't make my hobby the same way. Run what you brung, if it ain't enough then too bad. Take it home and make it faster.

That being said, I started playing in these forums because of my love of Muscle Cars. I truly have no desire to watch late models and ricers race. I can see that any track day on any road course in the United States. What made Lat G and Pro Touring so cool was seeing some of the coolest, nicest Muscle Cars in the country get the crap kicked out of them. Don't know what the answer is but its not more rules. Just my 2 cents.

Agree!

[GrabberGT]

I agree that we will lose interest in it pretty quick when the newer cars start to dominate the scene. I think a Pro-touring class at the very least would be a great start. Define PT as Pre-80's with carryover body styles. Make the "street manners" section of the judging more meaningful to balance out against the streetable race cars. Move the cruise to the end of the event to get drivers to race more conservatively since they still have to complete the cruise in order to get those points. If you break your car or render it unstreetable during one of the racing events, you'll lose valuable cruise points. In my opinion, PT cars are not race cars. They are street cars with racing capabilities. You still have to be able to drive them after racing them. If any portion of the event cannot be completed, no points will be awarded for the event.

[dontlifttoshift]

Move the cruise to the end of the event to get drivers to race more conservatively since they still have to complete the cruise in order to get those points.

I like the principal behind that but the social aspect of the cruise on Saturday night is pretty cool too. Why not both?

[Blake Foster]

All you can do is have a year cut off. and the guy with the most money wins. end of story.

Or just change the name to the Optima Ultimate Car, because lets be honest the top cars out there were barley street cars.

I am not crying spilt milk by any stretch, you have to pick your poison for sure.
it sure is fun to watch I must say.

[GrabberGT]

I like the principal behind that but the social aspect of the cruise on Saturday night is pretty cool too. Why not both?

Agree. Also... minimum tread depth check before returning to the street for the final cruise. Tires have to pass the same safety checks after racing as they did before the racing.

[ArisESQ]

Or just change the name to the Optima Ultimate Car, because lets be honest the top cars out there were barley street cars.




That just means that the judging criteria for the concourse and rally events need to be revised a little. More points could be given for full interior, stereo and AC, etc.

[Blake Foster]

I like the principal behind that but the social aspect of the cruise on Saturday night is pretty cool too. Why not both?

GOOD IDEA!! and make the cruse 100 miles, lots of open hwy in NV. Even some COOL back roads. If you went up 15 to Moapa/ Valley of fire around that loop to Overton and back the I15 it would be about 80-90 miles with slow winding country roads and freeway driving with 2-3 available gas stops. I mean hell if the Drag week guys can do 1500 miles. a prostock car could drive 15 miles if it had to.

[preston]

Getting a little off topic from what Jody is asking here, but if its truly an ultimate street car then the following should also be included in the points-

dB and noise spectrum at cruise as well as NVH frequency analysis (how high, how much amplitude) make it a single blended score
Visibility out back and for lane changes
Cockpit temperature maintained in a certain range
clutch stiffness (again a wide rating that mostly penalizes outliers)
freeway rut tramline test
Would your mom ride in it ?
Ultimate level - would your mom drive it ?

Totally impractical of course but I kind of laugh everytime people start discussing race/street cars. Other than the "pre 1980 body style" thing I don't think there is a way to really separate muscle car styles from the modern cars.

The real question to start with is does Optima want an ultimate street car contest or a "cool looking cars compete on track" contest ?
I believe the first few years were the latter, and now it is turning into the former. I remember the first few years, it was mostly show cars that could run vs what's going on now. But as people have said, that's what made it cool, that was the real draw.

[Panteracer]

Now I know why Jody runs this board
He can post one question and get us going 4 pages in one day... love it

In Sf region of SCCA and also American autocross series they started
many years back two classes that are and maybe still unique to their
region... Open street prepared... anything goes but is has to have interior
and be registered.. they also took the old vettes out of the class and added Vintage prepared- spec tire- Nascar tires... these two things gave
some of these guys a place to run

First there needs to be some rules and I think Optima and SCCA are
trying to make things fair- not too many

I ran Optima last year and one of the best days of my life... I ran my
Pantera Saturday at Good guys (almost all the fast guys were in Vegas
except Mary) and placed 3 overall with 66 cars. but I was running
Dot road race tires.. more grip but harder to heat up with a car
that I cross once every year or two... my point is I had fun
and everyone loved the car.... everyone loves the old cars

Mary opened her hood and a group formed quickly.. look under the
car and the changes including the IRS are great

Our sport needs to have the old cars run but a guy like Kyle,Brent, etc also
need to show what they can do for the new cars otherwise they
may not be selling anything down the road...

Our sport is about improving what we have with the ways and means
we have.. someone is always going to be faster..... we all just want
to be faster than before and enjoy doing it

my two cents-Panteracer

[ArisESQ]

The real question to start with is does Optima want an ultimate street car contest or a "cool looking cars compete on track" contest ?
I believe the first few years were the latter, and now it is turning into the former. I remember the first few years, it was mostly show cars that could run vs what's going on now. But as people have said, that's what made it cool, that was the real draw.

I dunno... I personally like seeing how fast a street car can really be, and get particularly interested when a classic car can run against late model performance cars.

The former version of USCA you describe, which seemed to have been judged mostly subjectively based on what car looked the coolest, isn't really all that interesting to me. Just feels like an opportunity for people to pretend to race their cars.

If I can go out to a track day and run time trials in an open competition against everything from pumped up EVO and Z06, to Porsche GT2, and come within a margin of cars that are proven to be really fast out the box in my 47 year old Camaro, then I'll be stoked.

I don't need to win to have a blast - I just want to see what my car can do when judged objectively against newer cars.

[SSLance]

My first objective when running in Optima or with the SCCA is just to have a place to drive my car like I built it to be driven in the first place.

Optima's format with the 5 events crammed into one weekend is a fantastic formula for this. The seat time one gets at these events is worth SO much more than screwing something up just to try to figure out a way to get your car closer to the top of the standings at the end of the day.

I didn't care or dream about being anywhere near the top of the running order on the big sheet. Did I look to see how I was doing against those guys...sure. I also watched them closely when I could to see if I as a driver could pick anything up from them. Heck, I lined up on the warm up laps behind Danny Popp and learned the line around the track at 60 mph.

Mainly though I looked around at the cars similarly built to mine and looked to see where I stacked up against them at each event. Everyone knows who everyone is, and what their cars are built like. Pick those that you think you can beat and go do it.

Being able to see myself running my car on TV...well that was just gravy on top of an already excellent weekend.

[ccracin]

The older I get the more I love anarchy. No more rules!!! When we started all this my biggest fear was a rule book like so many other forms of racing.

If its not the Feds its local government telling me what I have to do. Don't make my hobby the same way. Run what you brung, if it ain't enough then too bad. Take it home and make it faster.

That being said, I started playing in these forums because of my love of Muscle Cars. I truly have no desire to watch late models and ricers race. I can see that any track day on any road course in the United States. What made Lat G and Pro Touring so cool was seeing some of the coolest, nicest Muscle Cars in the country get the crap kicked out of them. Don't know what the answer is but its not more rules. Just my 2 cents.

I add my 2 cents to this!

[Panteracer]

Lance I agree Have a place to run the car
My esp firebird is no longer legal for that class
with all changes made and instead of moving to
Cp I can do osp or Cam now.

This whole discussion is great
Reminds me of a favorite movie line
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid

Getting ready to fight for running the hole in
the wall gang so Butch chooses knives
The other guy is ready to start and Butch says no no
we need to go over the rules

The other guy says Rules in a knife fight?

[James OLC]

Ok - I'll take a stab at this...

Jody's question was "what would a pro-touring class look like if there were classes for competitors?" My answer addresses that question alone and does not have anything to do with the USCA, ASCA, or OUSCI.

Eligible cars - anything older than 1989 with current Registration and Insurance. Must have basic, functioning, "street car" equipment: headlights, tail lights, signal lights, hazard lights, backup light, license plate light, horn, wipers, self contained heat, built in audio, glass windshield, functioning side windows and a minimum of two seats. All "street car" equipment must be permanently installed. MINIMUM weight must be within 2% of the manufacturers advertised dry weight.

Wheels - open

Tires - any 200 treadwear tire (no size limitations) purchased from Tire Rack, Discount Tire, or other recognized tire retailer OR any DOT legal tire (no treadwear limitations) 275 mm wide or less (also purchased at a recognized retailer). Must produce receipt if requested. Ideally tires would/could be branded at the time of purchase.

Suspension - open

Brakes - open

Body - open

Aero - open

Engine - open

Transmission - no sequential gearboxes

Exhaust - mufflers are mandatory

That's it. Fact is rules can not or should not be drafted to specifically cater to any one's preconceived notion or particular car. This is Pro Touring and as best as I can recall the premise of Pro Touring was based on improving and modernizing old cars and not limiting them or putting them in to a particular pigeon hole.

Now... If there was a series I would add the following:

1. In order to compete for event or series point individual CARS would have to be certified and would have to complete a 300 mile cruise prior to be eligible for points. One day prior to any event a certification cruise would be held. Drivers only have to complete one cruise per season BUT if an engine is changed they must recertify at the next event to remain eligible.
2. Drivers must be the registered owner of the car.
3. No professional drivers.
4. No tire warmers

The conversation surrounding USCA and OUSCI is another one entirely. Cam and Jimi have done a great job putting the series together and the reality is, like it or not, we are a small part of the automotive community and if you are going to be the Ultimate anything you can't put a bunch of limitations on things... Unless you want to compete to be the "Ultimate red 1964 to 1973 American built, two wheel drive street car with 275 tires weighing over 3726 pounds with a five speed".

[Vince@Meanstreets]

I dunno... I personally like seeing how fast a street car can really be
I don't need to win to have a blast - I just want to see what my car can do when judged objectively against newer cars.

Seeing what you can do against a new factory built is fun but at the end of the day its for racing.

The most fun I have had at a track was with a group of friends racing for the weekend. Chasin with no times or who beat who. We did have race groups just to keep it safe. But it was just us n trhe track.

Just a bunch of guys who built their cars in carports to guys that had shops do the work for them. All in fun.

[CarlC]

Those rules look vaguely familiar James. It works very well in that arena and could translate very nicely, sans the engine rule since it would be easy to cheat around. A 300+ mile cruise every time to a separate event with no trailers, sag wagons, etc. would also significantly change the vehicle and logistics dynamic, but USCA coverage would be tough.

Separating into a "PT" group would be great for ME to see. However, without sponsors, these events won't happen. So, the question becomes what do the sponsors want to see? What do they need in order to keep their interest in sponsoring, advertising, and attending these events? If we knew better what they want, it might be easier for us and USCA to craft an accommodating format.

In the end it is the Optima Ultimate Street Car (singular.)

[65_LS1_T56]

Yep. "thumbsup: Jimi is committed to this event, and I know he'll continue to improve it. We're getting some ideas here for possible changes to equalize things, or possibly a separate class. I'll make sure he gets our ideas at least for additional input on whatever they decide to do in the future.

It was a GREAT time and I really liked the venue change. Spring Mountain is a beautiful facility, but this has a lot more room and better for spectators in my opinion. I think it went very smooth for the first time with such a big change in venue and doubling of participants. USCA did a great job on this one.

They did an excellent job orchestrating that whole deal, especially with the chaos of SEMA thrown in with it.

That said...Rodney Prouty, Aaron Oberle, Dan Ballard, Dan Howe, Sam and Deb Farrington, Jeff Montgomery, and Jane Thurmond, are just a few of the guys and gals in regular "our type" muscle cars that went to OUSCI this year and from everything I've seen or heard, they had an absolutely fabulous time there. I've seen "Weekend of a lifetime" mentioned several times...

And I suppose that they all ran around mid pack once things were ironed out. All very capable drivers in well sorted out Street Cars... I can't wait for the opportunity to do just the same, regardless of the ruleset.

Lance, thanks for mentioning me. I'm sure some of the guys on here can attest to the grin I had all weekend. I was in my element. Sure, sometimes things don't seem "fair" but as others have said, we come for the cars and the competition and stay for the friendships. I'm still hoping to finish mid-pack like I did at each of the qualifying events I did this year. Results soon I hope.

Some of you saw the pic I posted of our first run group session in Advanced, running order was GT-R, 997 TT, ZR1...65 Chevelle! The order changed in later sessions but I was pretty darn happy to be right up there with those cars. The ZR1 was only 0.8 secs faster than me in that session, lol.

GOOD IDEA!! and make the cruse 100 miles, lots of open hwy in NV. Even some COOL back roads. If you went up 15 to Moapa/ Valley of fire around that loop to Overton and back the I15 it would be about 80-90 miles with slow winding country roads and freeway driving with 2-3 available gas stops. I mean hell if the Drag week guys can do 1500 miles. a prostock car could drive 15 miles if it had to.

Yes, this would be good. Not just an easy freeway drive, but a good mix. I think a substantial drive would have a few dead soldiers by the end. I'm sure there were a few "racey" clutches that weren't too happy about the drive down Las Vegas Boulevard in stop and go (mostly stop) traffic. That was pretty cool actually getting to drive the strip :D

[dontlifttoshift]

I agree with most of what you said.

<snip> MINIMUM weight must be within 2% of the manufacturers advertised dry weight. <snip>

All that does is tell me that I must start with the lightest car.

<snip>
Tires - any 200 treadwear tire (no size limitations) purchased from Tire Rack, Discount Tire, or other recognized tire retailer OR any DOT legal tire (no treadwear limitations) 275 mm wide or less (also purchased at a recognized retailer). Must produce receipt if requested. Ideally tires would/could be branded at the time of purchase.<snip>

Since we don't typically run in the rain and don't have to put that many miles on in the cruise, I think most would run the 275 A7s over any of the 200 TW tires. 200TW keeps it simple.

That's it. Fact is rules can not or should not be drafted to specifically cater to any one's preconceived notion or particular car. This is Pro Touring and as best as I can recall the premise of Pro Touring was based on improving and modernizing old cars and not limiting them or putting them in to a particular pigeon hole.

This times eleventy.


1. In order to compete for event or series point individual CARS would have to be certified and would have to complete a 300 mile cruise prior to be eligible for points. One day prior to any event a certification cruise would be held. Drivers only have to complete one cruise per season BUT if an engine is changed they must recertify at the next event to remain eligible.

That would be cool but see Rodger's comments regarding Drag Week and Kyle/Ryan drove the White Monster on OneLap so it seems that all it proves is what an individual is willing to put up with.


The conversation surrounding USCA and OUSCI is another one entirely. Cam and Jimi have done a great job putting the series together and the reality is, like it or not, we are a small part of the automotive community and if you are going to be the Ultimate anything you can't put a bunch of limitations on things... Unless you want to compete to be the "Ultimate red 1964 to 1973 American built, two wheel drive street car with 275 tires weighing over 3726 pounds with a five speed".

Like.


So, the question becomes what do the sponsors want to see? What do they need in order to keep their interest in sponsoring, advertising, and attending these events? If we knew better what they want, it might be easier for us and USCA to craft an accommodating format.


Opinions vary. Look at how pure motorsports used be compared to what it is now.

I would very much like to hear an opinion or two from someone who competed over the weekend and would like to see a change.....and I would _really_ like to see the results from the weekend to see how outgunned the PT cars are.

That brings me to another question, is anyone surprised by the outcome? There was 10 events throughout the year, the AWDs and late models didn't just get fast in Vegas, did they?

[James OLC]

I agree with most of what you said.

All that does is tell me that I must start with the lightest car.


But you have that option as it is. The only reason to even mention weight is to get away from the attempts to craft rules that require you to run a B-body Dodge to meet the rules. Minimum wights are tough because a base '67 came in at less than 3100 pounds dry... Making a minimum weight of 3200+ is unrealistic given many of our cars could have weighted less to begin with.


Since we don't typically run in the rain and don't have to put that many miles on in the cruise, I think most would run the 275 A7s over any of the 200 TW tires. 200TW keeps it simple.


True but if you were on A7s in Pittsburgh you just lost and, depending on the cruise, you could heat cycle the tires out before you got to the track. It's a risk that some would take and would be interesting. Not a lot of soft tires would survive two days happily...


That would be cool but see Rodger's comments regarding Drag Week and Kyle/Ryan drove the White Monster on OneLap so it seems that all it proves is what an individual is willing to put up with.


Yep - I was there with Kyle and Ryan... in the pouring rain... on a bridge...in rush hour traffic... in Bowling Green Kentucky... on Derby day. We were both pulling trailers. :) And I'm fine with that. Nobody should be able to tell me what I can drive on the street. I've driven with a kirky seat for more miles than most would enjoy - no big deal with seat covers. Heck - last week some people were telling me that you had to have AC to be a real street car. I didn't own a car with AC until I was 26 - I never needed it here.



I would very much like to hear an opinion or two from someone who competed over the weekend and would like to see a change.....and I would _really_ like to see the results from the weekend to see how outgunned the PT cars are.

That brings me to another question, is anyone surprised by the outcome? There was 10 events throughout the year, the AWDs and late models didn't just get fast in Vegas, did they?

I was there. We were badly outgunned for the most part and it was no surprise. The points champion drove a 5th gen and late model Camaros and Corvettes were dominant throughout the year. And yes - AWDs were there all year - but this was the first event where they were ALL there the same time.

BUT - we tried - we had fun - and we would all do it again.

[chetly]

Being the points champion is a little on the superficial side in my opion. He happened to also go to 5 events this year, more than anyone else as far as I know. It would have been hard for him not to be the points champion. The points champion should have been the participant that scored the most points overall in 1 event in my opinion.

[James OLC]

Being the points champion is a little on the superficial side in my opion. He happened to also go to 5 events this year, more than anyone else as far as I know. It would have been hard for him not to be the points champion. The points champion should have been the participant that scored the most points overall in 1 event in my opinion.

Points for the championship were based on the best 3 events. Ken went to 5 events in the 1LE, Bryan went to 3, Kyle went to 6, I went to 6, Ryan went to 7 and Billy went to 5. Nobody in the Top 20 went to fewer than 3 events. If we used the best single event score the National Champion would have been Brandon in the Evo and the title could have easily gone to someone who was the only car in their class.

[LS7 Z/28]

Being the points champion is a little on the superficial side in my opion. He happened to also go to 5 events this year, more than anyone else as far as I know. It would have been hard for him not to be the points champion. The points champion should have been the participant that scored the most points overall in 1 event in my opinion.

In what world would a points championship be based off of 1 event?

There were 10 events and I'm pretty certain he attended more than 5.

I'm not certain how they counted points or determined a champion, but if they were going to revise it all all, the thing to do would be to take everyone's 5 or maybe 7? Best shows and throw out the rest. You take their best 5 point scoring events and whoever had the most points combined is the champion.

When you are offering 10 events, it's not much to ask the top points guys to run at least half the series, and obviously if you have someone run every event they are going to better their chances at scoring the most points, throwing out their bad events.

A lot of short track series's run a similar points system, using their top however many points nights to determine the champion.

[LS7 Z/28]

Points for the championship were based on the best 3 events. Ken went to 5 events in the 1LE, Bryan went to 3, Kyle went to 6, I went to 6, Ryan went to 7 and Billy went to 5. Nobody in the Top 20 went to fewer than 3 events. If we used the best single event score the National Champion would have been Brandon in the Evo and the title could have easily gone to someone who was the only car in their class.

Well there's my answer.... I think 3 events is kind of low for a 10 race series but it makes sense that they did that. Next year with additional events I'm guessing they would use the best 5 at least.

[Track Junky]

The 2014 USCA Optima Ultimate Street Car Invitational was awesome. Had a great time, and if you have a chance you really need to attend these events.

In the finals it's "run what you brung"; no classes for individual cars. But what would a pro-touring class look like if there were classes for competitors? I'd love to hear your thoughts. :thumbsup:

Not sure why I am even commenting on this particular subject since its not my bag of tea but here's my $.02......Pro-touring to me is any muscle car under 1973 with aftermarket up grades. If I was going to separate the competition in this particular class I would do it based on weight. 3200 lbs and under with driver and 3201 lbs and over with driver.
Beyond that I'd keep it run what you brung. I personally don't think power plays a big part in being fast on a road course as much as tires and weight do and were all trying to squeeze the fattest tires up underneath our wells anyways.

[chetly]

Points for the championship were based on the best 3 events. Ken went to 5 events in the 1LE, Bryan went to 3, Kyle went to 6, I went to 6, Ryan went to 7 and Billy went to 5. Nobody in the Top 20 went to fewer than 3 events. If we used the best single event score the National Champion would have been Brandon in the Evo and the title could have easily gone to someone who was the only car in their class.

Interesting, I didn't know that many people went to so many events. My reasoning comes from the not everyone can afford to go to multiple events, but everyone should be able to compete for a championship. Congrats to Ken. I wasn't trying to knock him, just the system.

[Vegas69]

I was only at the event for a few hours but one of my first impressions was that the days of a pro-touring car winning are likely in the past. In all honesty, this event needs to appeal to the masses for it to continue. I think they realized that pro touring couldn't support this series. Pro touring is a relatively small group of people. Another observation was the huge amount of sponsor support and small crowd. I'm sure SEMA played into the decisions for these vendors to show up, but there was more vendor support than you see at big events in drag racing, etc..

This event is a luxury for all involved. Build a nice car and if you get invited, wear a smile and go out and have fun. You aren't going to win.

If you want to win, build a corvette and have lots of talent.

I told Greg when I saw him that Mark's car is the epidemy of pro touring. To me, many of the others are just glorified race cars. Build what floats your boat, I don't have a problem with it. But for me, I'd want what Mark has for a street car or a purpose built race car.

It's going to be tough to come up with any rules for this event. The cars are going way to FAST. When you start taking away race car strategies, you end up with a less safe event. It goes back to the run what you brung and look at it as a luxury to me.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

sad but true

[GregWeld]

Personally I'd like to just see three "classes" with no rules for the classes. Rules and definitions are just a PITA and create too many other issues.

Pick a DATE for a cut off for an EARLY IRON class

The EARLY IRON wouldn't define "pro touring"... it's just all early cars.

Anything after that magic date is a LATE MODEL - all wheel drive - whatever...

Then have a "show car" class

I like the "Show cars" -- it's so kool to see people willing to build a "show car" and yet come out and put it at risk... they're generally not "racer" types - most are totally unprepared. Let 'em at least slug it out for a trophy against the other show cars without having to compete with real race cars.


Change the styling to what I've said in past -- "WHICH CAR WOULD YOU MOST LIKE TO DRIVE" and leave it at that. That's 3 picks - one for each "class". Done. Then run what ya brung.


You could still have an OVERALL CHAMPION -- but at least there would be a "class winner" and that would put some spark back into the eyes of the early iron guys and would be fun for the "SHOW CAR" people too... you could brag that you had the fastest show car at OUSCI and have a trophy to show for it.


The fun of the early events was just to watch ALL of the cars RUN -- it was less of a competition and more of a come out and run, and while there wasn't many spectators and no TV -- it was the coolest event ever because EVERYONE just came out and did the best they could do with what they had.


I'd also like to see them hand out TROPHIES instead of checks. Checks get spent and you have no memory to show down the road. TROPHIES are for keeps and every time you see it the memories flood in and bring a smile to your face. Those $500 BF Goodrich checks they handed out would buy a pretty nice trophy and it could have a big BFG on the top kinda like a Wally..... So BFG would be forever immortalized as being a part of the event.

[57hemicuda]

Although I still prefer anarchy, that makes sense, simple classes, without a bunch of rules. I like the fact that it still brings in the show cars allowing sponsors to show off their products. Still has a hint of the wild wild west, and lets everybody play.

Still have no desire to watch late models and ricers race, maybe they should limit them to around 3, OK 5.lol

[dontlifttoshift]

I would very much like to hear an opinion or two from someone who competed over the weekend and would like to see a change.....and I would _really_ like to see the results from the weekend to see how outgunned the PT cars are.



I was there. We were badly outgunned for the most part and it was no surprise. The points champion drove a 5th gen and late model Camaros and Corvettes were dominant throughout the year. And yes - AWDs were there all year - but this was the first event where they were ALL there the same time.

BUT - we tried - we had fun - and we would all do it again.

Does it need to change?

[GregWeld]

Does it need to change?



Yes and No.... IMHO

Anyone that wouldn't go because they couldn't "WIN" is a loser....
This event is just fantastic and anyone that gets a chance should make the effort regardless of their chance to win, place, or show. In the end it's about the memories, and the friendships made -- not the time slip.

But you could also modify the event so people could at least get recognized for their efforts? What would it hurt. It would cost so little for 3 or 4 trophies and some mic time at the awards ceremony....

There just aren't very many folks capable of adding launch control and abs brakes - and AWD to their early iron. Then it would be a race to at least compare and try to outwit guys of your own cloth.

[chetly]

James, what's your reasoning behind no sequential transmissions? With today's automatics shifting as fast as they do I see no difference.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Steilows next car didn't have flappy paddles, launch control and abs...

[PTAddict]

Personally I'd like to just see three "classes" with no rules for the classes. Rules and definitions are just a PITA and create too many other issues.

Pick a DATE for a cut off for an EARLY IRON class

The EARLY IRON wouldn't define "pro touring"... it's just all early cars.

Anything after that magic date is a LATE MODEL - all wheel drive - whatever...

Then have a "show car" class

I like the "Show cars" -- it's so kool to see people willing to build a "show car" and yet come out and put it at risk... they're generally not "racer" types - most are totally unprepared. Let 'em at least slug it out for a trophy against the other show cars without having to compete with real race cars.


Change the styling to what I've said in past -- "WHICH CAR WOULD YOU MOST LIKE TO DRIVE" and leave it at that. That's 3 picks - one for each "class". Done. Then run what ya brung.


You could still have an OVERALL CHAMPION -- but at least there would be a "class winner" and that would put some spark back into the eyes of the early iron guys and would be fun for the "SHOW CAR" people too... you could brag that you had the fastest show car at OUSCI and have a trophy to show for it.


The fun of the early events was just to watch ALL of the cars RUN -- it was less of a competition and more of a come out and run, and while there wasn't many spectators and no TV -- it was the coolest event ever because EVERYONE just came out and did the best they could do with what they had.


I'd also like to see them hand out TROPHIES instead of checks. Checks get spent and you have no memory to show down the road. TROPHIES are for keeps and every time you see it the memories flood in and bring a smile to your face. Those $500 BF Goodrich checks they handed out would buy a pretty nice trophy and it could have a big BFG on the top kinda like a Wally..... So BFG would be forever immortalized as being a part of the event.

I like all of this!

One other thing I'd like to see is an actual driving evaluation of the car by the judges - maybe they could drive the car a couple of laps (at low speeds) around the track, or ride along, or something, to get feel for the car's real comfort, amenities, and drivability. I think the Car Craft RSE event used to do something like this ...

[SSLance]

I reread this thread this morning and realized I put the cart before the horse a bit in my posts. I had my SCCA hat on a bit too quickly plus didn't realize the cars weren't split into the three normal classes at the OUSCI final.

So to add to my original proposal of what a PT class would\should look like, I'd also add "American Made" to my proposed PT class ruleset.



Here what I proposed to the SCCA for changes to their CAM classes for 2015:

These are all American made, street legal licensed and registered, 200 TW street tired cars to start with.

CAM = All current CAM cars with 275 or smaller tires, stock appearing interior, minimum 3200 pounds (edit to 3000 pounds*)
CAM-W = All current CAM cars with larger than 275 tires, somewhat altered interiors, minimum 3000 pounds
CAM-S = All current CAM-S cars (factory two seaters) and cars that don't fit into CAM or CAM-W

*I didn't realize the 1967 Camaro was only 3100 pounds from the factory so I'd leave the minimum weight for CAM at 3000 pounds as it is now.



A common goal to create a ruleset that allows car owners to build a car to compete in OUSCI, SCCA, ASCA and Good Guys on level playing fields is being worked on. The courses and competitions are different, SCCA is mainly autocross while at the OUSCI more attention is paid to the road courses...but a common ruleset between the three will help everyone creating a draw to get competitors to show at events and giving competitors a place to play competitively.

Everyone is going to have a bit of a different idea of how to set the ruleset that benefits themselves the most, I know I'm guilty of that. But most of us want the same thing overall...a place to play as competitively as possible.

I just want the ruleset to be kept as simple as possible and include as many cars as possible in their own competitive class(es). If you used the three classes listed above plus a class for the AWD import cars, just about every car that was at OUSCI last weekend would run competitively against similar type cars and have a shot. Not sure how you decide on the single Ultimate Street Car from those classes but maybe the one that scores the most points in their respective class ends up being the overall winner? Or you get an Ultimate Street Car winner from each class and all get the same recognition.

It is hard to not SCCA up the ruleset if you get my drift, but it seems you have to split it up at least a little bit to make it more fair for everyone. That should be the common goal. Trying to do it by make, model and year just isn't going to work, there are way too many modifications allowed and different types of body styles used in this type of an open class for that type of separation.

[camcojb]

Mark Stielow sent me his thoughts in an email this morning:

Pre-1980
Only 4 seaters
American Made
50% stock floor pans
Any 200 tread wear tires


Maybe 2 classes

Stock Chassis / Frame and no bigger that 275 tires

Modified chassis and mini tubbed any size tire

The easy way to go is work with the SCCA and make the CAM class the same as the Pro-Touring classes.

[SSLance]

At the 2014 SCCA Solo Nationals there were 3 cars (5 drivers) in CAM-T and 6 cars (7 drivers) in CAM-C (all newer than 1980). I don't understand the thought of excluding all of those cars and drivers from the PT game?

My scenario isn't that much different than Mark's except my way doesn't turn anyone away, it just moves them to a more competitive class for them.


2014 CAM Contemporary Entrants by finishing position:
1 2011 Chevrolet Camaro (would be in CAM-W)
2 1982 Ford Mustang (would be in CAM-W)
3 1985 Chevrolet Monte Carlo (would be in CAM)
4 2005 Ford Mustang (would be in CAM-W)
5 1982 Ford Mustang (would be in CAM-W)
6 2005 Ford Mustang (would be in CAM-W)
7 1988 Pontiac GTA (would be in CAM)


2014 CAM-Traditional Entrants by finishing position:

1 1967 Chevrolet Camaro (would be in CAM-W)
2 1964 Chevy Nova (would be in CAM)
3 1969 Chevrolet Camaro (would be in CAM)
4 1969 Chevrolet Camaro (would be in CAM)
5 1964 Chevy Nova (would be in CAM)

In both the Pro-Solo Invitational and the Solo Nationals, the cars noted with CAM-W all ran pretty similar times while the CAM cars were also very competitive with each other. I see no reason to separate them out by model year.

In our local SCCA region in just CAM, my 1985 Monte Carlo raced very competitively all year long against the 2011 Camaro above and a 2000 Pontiac WS6. Once the Camaro put on a good set of tires and some mods, he started beating us like a drum, but the Pontiac and I were both on the exact same tires and brakes and we ran nearly identical times all year long.

[dontlifttoshift]

50% stock floorpans

Hyptothetical, floorpans were rotted out from rocker to rocker so I made new ones because I can.

Quite honestly, SCCA can barely handle its own rules, I really don't think they need input on USCA. I believe SCCA should be looking to USCA for help.


This from section 2 of the USCA rules.

1. 5 points – will be awarded to each participant that presents their vehicle, within the
designated timeframe, to the designated location for judging.

This is 5 points that are just being given away anyhow. Use this as a "degree of difficulty" or something to that effect. If a horn, stereo, heater and fuel gauge can add up to 2 points certainly it is not unreasonable to use 5points to reward the guy who put above average effort into his car. It is the reponsibility of the car owner to "sell" his efforts to the DE judges. i.e. I moved the engine back 3" because race car and then I installed 75 pounds of sound deadener because street car.

[SSLance]

Quite honestly, SCCA can barely handle its own rules, I really don't think they need input on USCA. I believe SCCA should be looking to USCA for help.



I agree...and they are... Actually I believe there is a combined effort by all of the sanctioning bodies to work together to get them all on the same page.

Now, if we could just get Good Guys to relax on the Pre-73 only rules. :D I understand it for the car show purposes, but on the competition side they are leaving out a large portion of potential entrants (but maybe they are okay with that).

I saw my very first autocross run in person at the Scottsdale Good Guys show in March of 2010. I came back home and started trying to figure out how to do that with my car and haven't been to a Good Guys show since.

[96z28ss]

I have volunteered at both the Optima Challenge and RTTC events. I love going to see the pre 1980 cars run. I think that muscle cars are what made these events special. There are tons of late model cars racing in other series. The Optima Challenge was showcasing that the muscle cars with the help of the aftermarket parts were making them handle and perform like modern day cars. You can see how the muscle cars dominated this in the early years.

2008 Optima 6 out of 28 cars were newer than 1980
2009 Optima 11 out of 51 cars were newer than 1980
2010 Optima 13 out of 50 cars were newer than 1980
2011 Optima 19 out of 52 cars were newer than 1980
2012 Optima 24 out of 53 cars were newer than 1980
2013 Optima 25 out of 52 cars were newer than 1980
2014 Optima 61 out of 104 cars were newer than 1980

This started with pro-touring cars. I'd like to see them stay competitive in this series in some form. I'm not sure how you do it exactly.
As you can see the muscle cars are now less than half the field.

I'd also like to see the term Street car actually mean something. The car should pass a 50 state DOT inspection minus the emissions part.

[Ron Sutton]

Food for thought from the old racer guy that has been around the block ...

I can't think of any competition sanctioning body that has achieved long term success & staying power without multiple classes/divisions.

NHRA
IHRA
NASCAR
IMSA
TUDOR
CART
IRL
USAC
WoO
Sprint Cars
Micro Sprints
SCCA Autocross
SCCA Road Racing
SCCA Pro Racing
Trans Am
GoodGuys AX
NASA
AMA
Supercross
SCORE
Lucas Off Road Series
TORC
IKF
WKA
Superkarts
Track day organizations

I'm sure there are exceptions I haven’t thought of … and someone will post one or more up … but the model of long term success (staying power) is to have multiple classes or divisions. Having personally been involved in series building activities & committees with many of these organizations, I observed firsthand & heard from leaders the top reasons are:

A. After the novelty wears off of "just being able to participate" ... entrants that are way out of their league ... performance wise ... fall away. It was fun once or even a few times ... but eventually being a LONG WAY off pace gets boring, frustrating, depressing, etc, and these slower participants feel the series is "not for them" and become disenfranchised ... ultimately becoming disengaged ... going onto some other competition events that they "fit in" better. The problem this creates is a very small base of competitive entrants that run the events & a high number of entrant churn. In the early stages of a growing series everyone is excited. But as the series matures, and we churn through a lot of entrants, the series finds itself with lower & lower car counts.

IMHO: When someone says it was a "once in lifetime experience for them" ... oh crap ... that's a clue they won't be doing this much more.

B. Low car counts is the death of a series. Fans want to see a lot cars. Sponsors want to see a lot of cars & lots of fans. Even competitors want to see a lot a lot of cars & lots of fans. Other than a few "win cherry picker" type of competitors ... most people want to go where the action is. So everyone that matters ... wants to see more cars & more action. Right now, the series is rockin'. It's the long term that needs to be looked at.

C. Financial viability of any series is based on volume. Other than sponsor dollars ... which go away if the series isn't hot, exciting & growing ... the key to making a series work (i.e. pay the bills) ... are large numbers of entrant fees & fans buying tickets. You simply can’t make it work long term without sustainable numbers.

D. Having multiple classes or divisions allows a larger number of potential entrants to participate with others in performance ranges closer to their levels of talent, budget & car capabilities. Of course too many classes is bad also, because it's confusing & dilutes the series. The key is a FEW, well thought out classes/divisions. If you look at the most successful models, they typically have 3-6. The series with too many classes/divisions, have other issues.

E. The sub-classes help pay for the show. There are WAY more people who can compete at a lower level ... and they want to compete in the cool event … provided there is a place they fit in well. Their volume helps pay for the show. Plus, these are the guys that actually buy parts from the sponsors & displaying vendors, whereas the elite competitors get much of their products sponsored to them.

F. The lower classes feed the top class. Over time, after a competitor has figured stuff out & won in the lower levels, a small number of them trickle up & "feed" the top class.

---------------------------------------------

As some of you know, I have participated in over 2000 race events & attended as a spectator a few hundred more. As a 2nd time spectator at this year's Optima event, my observations are:

Wow, what a great event. My hat is off to Jimi, Cam & the staff.
* It was well ran. As well as any competition event can run with 100+ cars.
* The 2 different AX tracks, brake stop & road course events really made it interesting & fun for the entrants & spectators.
* They ran a smart, safer show by placing the cars in road course groups based on experience.
* I was leery of the LVMS parking lot road course with no elevation charge being boring, but it was a great venue.
* Kudos for choosing the layout that kept cars away from each other where the corners & run off areas are near each other.
* Great job of keeping it fun for participants & spectators.

P.S. I don't know Jimi or Cam personally.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

My 2 cents on classes/divisions ...
(And I accept my opinion means nothing - LOL)

1. I agree there needs to be one top class that crowns the Ultimate Street Car. That "Unlimited" class/division needs to keep the rules ... or lack of ... just as they are, IMHO. Although, a 2500-2600# minimum weight rule might prevent some crazy one-off build from ruining the show. In my experience, this lack of rules breeds innovation, creativity & lets the top minds & top drivers have a place to show what they can do. They are the “main event.”

2. I believe there needs to be a very small number of sub-classes where a winner is declared & recognized in each respective class, along with the top 3 to 5 placers. The rules need to be minimal, but short & smart to keep a creative person like myself from ruining it for others in the class.

3. I think the sub-classes & rules should be:

A. Early American Iron
* Originally manufactured in America as a steel body car, 1989 & before
* Annual production quantities of 100+.
* Minimum weight somewhere around 2900-3100#.
* No ringer drivers. Owner/owner's family/builder only.
* Double the points available for “street car” functional features.
* Otherwise … “game on” … with no build rules.

B. Late Model
* Any year sports car (Corvette, Viper, Shelby, etc).
* Any year import car.
* Any American produced car 1990 & newer.
* Minimum weight somewhere around 2600-2800#.
* AWD drive cars (or maybe they have to run in the unlimited class).
* Any driver (already doing it anyway & many of these cars are bought, not built).
* Double the points available for “street car” functional features.
* Otherwise … “game on” … with no build rules.

C. American Hot Rod
* Any American produced car 1954 & older. (Maybe 1959 & older? )
* Minimum weight somewhere around 2900-3100#.
* No ringer drivers. Owner/owner's family/builder only.
* Double the points available for “street car” functional features.
* Otherwise … “game on” … with no build rules.

P.S. My “no build rules” in each of these sub-classes is purely because these are still meant to be the Ultimate Street Car … of their class. Not the best “average” or “restricted” car of their class.

P.P.S. My 1989 & older suggestion is based on when cars really changed, not when the muscle car era was. No one considers a 1988 Monte Carlo SS a high tech performance car. The 90’s is when performance cars from Detroit really started a comeback. Maybe the date of 1989 isn’t the best ... so a better date could be chosen.

P.P.P.S. I think the 10 points given right now for meeting all of the street legality requirements is too low. Right now it is a no brainer to forego some of that to build a faster car. That was evident by NASA/TT level race cars running at the top of the speed charts at this year's event. If the points were worth more, the top competitors would figure out how to be fastest with those items.

5. A few clarifying details ... in my opinion …
A. Anyone could skip these sub-classes and go compete in the Unlimited class for the title of Optima Ultimate Street Car.
B. Almost everyone would still be competing for the "Overall" Ultimate Street Car Title. If you can bring a car that fits into one of the sub classes ... and outperforms everyone ... your car is the Ultimate Street Car winner. (Although I do feel that should forfeit your sub-class win.)
C. The winning car in each class at the year end event could compete in the sub-class again, with a different driver.
D. The winning driver in each class at the year end event (not the qualifying events) should move up to the Unlimited class next year.

6. I feel there are some KEY awards that should be added to the existing awards that the participants also strive for, such as:
* Best Street Car ... for the car you'd really like to drive often & take on a cross country tour.
* Best Show Car ... for the most impressive appearance, style, craftsmanship, etc.
* Best Truck ... for the most impressive truck in the competition.
* Farthest Driven … for the car actually driven to the event from the longest distance.
* Fan Favorite ... open to voting.

I feel the Pro-Touring/G-Machine community would support the “Early American Iron” sub-class strongly. This group is where the Pro-Touring companies like Speedtech, Ridetech, Detroit Speed, etc. could prove their products worthiness & frankly lead to more sales for their companies in their target markets.

When you look at who the sponsors & vendors are outside of Optima & BFG ... they are primarily companies focused on the Pro-Touring & Street markets. We need to make it worthwhile to them financially to stay involved. Then utilize the Late Model, Hot Rod & Unlimited classes to attract additional sponsors, participants & fans.

That’s all. LOL

:cheers:

[dontlifttoshift]

Hey Ron! That's pretty insightful, thanks!

[chetly]

Ron, what's a ringer driver? Danny Popp, Mark Steilow, Mike Maier, Kyle Tucker, Robby Unser? Danny is a seasoned vet at auto-x and has won OUSCI twice, Mark is a GM engineer and accomplished driver, Mike is a 7 time SCCA auto-x champion and as you know ran multiple years in USAC, Kyle races BAJA in a class 10 buggy, and Robby has how many Pikes Peaks wins and USAC championships?

[SSLance]

That's an interesting take on it Ron...I'm still digesting it.

Can you expand more on your idea * Double the points available for “street car” functional features?

Say a basically race car on street tires shows up...aluminum skinned interior, race seats, cage, no creature comforts, runs on race fuel, nearly open headers, nobody in their right mind would want to drive it any further up the street than they had to. In your scenario would the "street car functional features" double points be enough to make up for a considerable speed advantage on the track and courses to a fully outfitted real Pro-Touring street car that any of us would get into and drive across the State?

I'm also wondering how a class structure like this would transfer over to the SCCA, ASCA or Good Guys events which don't include the design and engineering portion in their events? Those sanctioning bodies would probably still need to split the Early American Iron class up into a couple or more classes (maybe by tire size?). At the same time at least in the SCCA's case they don't need the late model class as they already have plenty of those where those cars can already be competitive in.


Would a steel body two seat AMX fit in the Late Model Class? Wasn't there a two seat early Mustang as well? Not sure if those would be considered sports cars or not? For the most part I'm good with the Late Model class. It's a way to separate out the 2 seat cars with the sizeable weight distribution and overall weight advantage from the full bodied cars and also gives the AWD and late model guys a comparable field to compete in.

[Ron Sutton]

Ron, what's a ringer driver? Danny Popp, Mark Steilow, Mike Maier, Kyle Tucker, Robby Unser? Danny is a seasoned vet at auto-x and has won OUSCI twice, Mark is a GM engineer and accomplished driver, Mike is a 7 time SCCA auto-x champion and as you know ran multiple years in USAC, Kyle races BAJA in a class 10 buggy, and Robby has how many Pikes Peaks wins and USAC championships?

Hi Chet,

I like ... and again this is just my opinion ... the rules & definition that USCA has now in the general rules.

20.
Only amateur drivers are allowed to compete for points accumulation, segment or event awards. The USCA defines amateur drivers as: An "amateur driver," whether he/she drives competitively or recreationally, is one who drives for the challenge it presents, not as a profession and not for significant financial gain. If competitive driving is not currently, or ever has been, your primary or significant source of income, you are an amateur.

21.
Professional drivers are not allowed to participate in any segment of any event for any awards. The USCA defines professional drivers as: A “professional driver” has competed at a high level of racing or time trial competition, for compensation that is a significant or primary source of income. USCA officials will grant permission for professional drivers to participate as exhibition drivers.

Of course it's up to USCA to decide how much compensation is a significant financial gain or primary source of income. There were 2 drivers that competed in this years event (Robby Unser & Ryan Matthews) that have raced at professional levels. Whether they did it for a living and/or had significant earnings is a USCA judgement.

In my opinion ... again, that & $4 will get you a cup of coffee ... they should be allowed to run in the Unlimited class, but probably not for sub-class honors ... if such sub-classes existed.

[Ron Sutton]

Hi Lance,

I wish you could have made it to SEMA & Optima this year. Both were a blast.

That's an interesting take on it Ron...I'm still digesting it.

Can you expand more on your idea * Double the points available for “street car” functional features?

Say a basically race car on street tires shows up...aluminum skinned interior, race seats, cage, no creature comforts, runs on race fuel, nearly open headers, nobody in their right mind would want to drive it any further up the street than they had to.
As you weren't there to see it at this event ... what you're describing above basically did show up & were the fastest cars. I'm not sure on the aluminum skinned interior, but there were cars there with zero interior, full race cage, lightweight dash, one race seat, no creature comforts, killer engines running on race fuel, very little muffling, etc. ... on 200 tread wear tires.

As a racer, I loved it. It was fun to watch. But for the majority of guys that brought real streetable cars, they didn't have a chance & that's disheartening. Those guys had fun, but they won't come back consistently to be back markers. IMO ... I think USCA needs to leave it alone and just add "sub-classes" to reward & encourage the guys that are bringing real street cars in the division or class that best suits their car. Just keep it simple with 2-3 sub-classes, but everyone still participating together.


In your scenario would the "street car functional features" double points be enough to make up for a considerable speed advantage on the track and courses to a fully outfitted real Pro-Touring street car that any of us would get into and drive across the State?
I don't know if double is the right number. And if you'll notice I did not suggest that for the unlimited class ... just the sub-classes. I know the guys with real street cars felt the stripped down NASA/TT style race cars had an unfair advantage.

I'm also wondering how a class structure like this would transfer over to the SCCA, ASCA or Good Guys events which don't include the design and engineering portion in their events? Those sanctioning bodies would probably still need to split the Early American Iron class up into a couple or more classes (maybe by tire size?). At the same time at least in the SCCA's case they don't need the late model class as they already have plenty of those where those cars can already be competitive in.
Again ... my opinion doesn't matter ... and the guys that run USCA will make the decisions on what they think is best for their series, as they should.

But in my opinion, USCA doesn't need to concern itself "too much" with what other sanctioning bodies do, because only USCA is promoting the "Ultimate Street Car."

But it would help the sports of ProTouring, Autocross & HPDE/Track Days if USCA rules were close enough to not exclude legitimate cars. Just as an example, if USCA went to a rule allowing a different treadwear number (higher or lower) it would make it harder for entrants to participate that already run on 200TW tires in CAM or Goodguys autocross. So just keeping the basics the same is very helpful.

Only as an analogy: In dirt, winged Sprint Car racing the rules are pretty similar around the country. So when the big show (World of Outlaws) comes to town ... and it is a 45-50+ car field ... only 20-25 cars actually tour the series. The rest is made up of sprint cars that already race regionally. The World of Outlaws sanctioning body keeps the rules in line with the what happens nationally ... to make it easy for local & regional cars to join in the show & make it the big event it is. I used to do this same strategy with a touring drag race series I promoted. We usually had 9-11 cars that we brought, but if 6-8 more joined in, we had a pretty good field. (For drag race rookies a 16 car field with a 4-round ladder system is common.)


Would a steel body two seat AMX fit in the Late Model Class? Wasn't there a two seat early Mustang as well? Not sure if those would be considered sports cars or not?
In my scenario ... aka "not reality" ... if it was steel 1989 or older, it would fit into the Early American Iron sub-category regardless of back seat.

For the most part I'm good with the Late Model class. It's a way to separate out the 2 seat cars with the sizeable weight distribution and overall weight advantage from the full bodied cars and also gives the AWD and late model guys a comparable field to compete in.
The 2-seat AMX & Mustangs didn't have any significant advantage. Most guys that were there removed their back seat for a roll bar/cage anyway. The 98" short wheelbase is a moderate advantage on the AMX, but a Vega & Pinto are shorter at 97". That is not an advantage on the road course.

The real advantage of the older Corvettes is the high engine set back for better weight distribution. The big advantage of the Shelby Cobras is the super light weight. Combine these with the short wheelbase & the advantage tilts so far in their favor the American Iron cars are on an unfair playing field. So IMHO let all years of Corvettes, Cobras, Vipers, etc compete with the Late Model group.

But it doesn't matter what you & I agree on. LOL !

:lol: :headspin: :mock: :rofl: :poke:

[Flash68]

Ron Sutton doesn't always drink beer... but when he does... it's not Dos Equis.

Insightful posts, Ron.

[GregWeld]

Just some food for thought since everyone is creating a "racing event" mentality here....


THIS IS A SHOW....


You RACE to get into the "SHOW"....


Many cars are by INVITE (IT is an INVITATIONAL after all...) and may or may not ever do this type of event again. EVER. We hope that they go home and build a badass car and beat on it because they are hooked... but that's beside the point.


My only reason for my super simple "rules" --- i.e., the 3 classes.... was not about "fairness" or about "winning"... it was about RECOGNITION and memories for the participants. A way of at least being recognized for being the "Stielow" or the "Hobaugh" of the event in your "class"... because you're not going to "win" against the newer AWD and late models given similar driver quality. Recognize that the guy with the show car (for christ sake - a guy with a RIDLER car was out there stomping on it!) is there for another glory day - was invited to come out... and a little podium time for him/her is good enough.
The overall winner is to the super competitive guys that fight for every .01 on their times - drive like pros - and win... regardless of what that might look like.

In the end -- it's a show.... not a sanctioned spec build race with tons of rules.

Who here remembers the Bentley the guy brought out and beat it like a Chump car? THAT WAS FUN TO WATCH. PERIOD. I don't care that he had no chance I watched that car like it was chariot sent from heaven. Ditto the ultra rare real Cobra! (okay he spanked everyone).... the best part of that was that he was there and using it for what it was built for.

This year Danny Popp still beat the field in an older (not that old but not a C7 either!) Corvette. He beat the AWD Porsches and EVO's.... and the 1000hp Pro-Touring cars.... and the new Camaros... he beat them all. My point is - it can be done...

I just don't care to go out there and watch RACE CARS.... but I still like 'em all!! LOL

[Ben@SpeedTech]

When I went to the Hotchkis Autocross at Fontana last month it was the first race other than local SCCA events I've participated in. I was VERY surprised to see that about half,maybe more (?) of the cars there were late model. At first I thought cool, I'll see how my old car compares to late stuff. After watching a bunch run and then getting my turn I was a bit dissapointed at just how much faster they were. "Oh well, I guess I'll take keeping up with new Camaros off my list." I stopped watching them and paid attention to the old cars after that point. Late model cars are, although cool, boring. How easy is it to buy a late model, put sticky tires and maybe a set of springs (?) and go dominate? My car is completely transformed from where it was stock using bolt on parts and some ingenuity but it's hopeless to think I could ever compete with those guys. When I race SCCA or if there weren't classes, like Ron said, after a while I go back to driving my street/strip Nova with 4.56 gears, a 12:1 small block and no interior on the street because at least I can have a chance at crossing the finish line first again.

There has to be a division between years IMO.

Too many and/or specific rules creates muddy water and an anal retentive inspector can ruin someone's day. I'm building custom door panels for my car because I'm a designer and stock appearing means no creativity in your build to me. My car has notched frame rails and minitubs. But I did that so I can run a wider wheel and 275s without rubbing. So where would I fit in with either of these mods- likely in a class that I couldn't keep up with yet my car really isn'rt any different than the lower class I should be in.

With the chassis bracing and roll cage and stripping anything I don't need the car weighs 3550 without me in it. I'm a light weight so it's 3700 with me. 3850+ with a ride along. How do I compete against a 3000 Camaro when we both have 275 tires and that's the rules? I could gut the doors, dump the interior, install lexan, etc. to lighten it up to be fair, but then it's deemed a race car. More power may be the answer, but that creates a whole new world of controlling tire spin on the autocross. It's all like a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario.

I took out the a/c and heater, along with anything else I don't need to drive the car yet still appear to be a street car. I roast in 118* weather in the summer and I'm a little chilly in the 45 degree winter weather on the way back and forth to work everyday, but I've gotten used to it. Does that really make my car not a street car? All my exterior lights work and I do have a simple stereo if that means anything. I have a fire extinguisher mounted on the trans tunnel too, so technically my car is more safe than a factory car. :)

In Fontana, the majority of the cars were between 50 and 47 seconds, separated often by a 10th or even 100th of a second. If I were to put on an event, I'd run classes by ability, which could mean any combination of the car and driver. If you get 3 trial runs and run a 31 second time, then you fit in the 31-30 sec class. If you run 29.5 during the event, you get bumped into the 29-28 sec class. And so forth. Sandbagging to win a class that you're realistically overqualified for would be a little harder than in drag racing, if you look at the times of the winners at Fontana there were several seconds between their different runs. A simple taking of the turn wrong or a little unexpected tire spin somewhere would throw calculated sandbagging out the window. If there was a class where I had a 2 second range to win, then pushing my car harder towards it's limits and becoming a better driver would be the only factors in whether I could really be competitive or not. It would have absolutely nothing to do with what tire size, vehicle weight, appearance, parts, paint color, what the driver had for dinner last night, etc. It's a simple competition of which car is fastest within a small bracket. It also makes for anyone and any car at any level realistically able to be competitive within their class. So, that full race prepped 69 Camaro could be competitive against that Lotus or AWD GTr. And a home garage built budget G body station wagon could be competitive against a home built budget 69 Camaro. And Mom, who came to watch, could run her minivan against that old fellow (who also originally cam just to watch) in his rental car 6 cyl Mustang. See where this is headed? Everyone has a realistic chance, more people come out to race, more people like to watch a variety of cars and see some heated competition, more amateurs and newbies get involved at their skill level, and more vendors get to rub shoulders with enthusiasts of all ends of the spectrum. Hmmm, sounds a lot like a very competitive and successful classification used in drag racing, that the test of time shows works.

Beyond what everyone said, I think there should be a station wagon class. That would be by far the most fun to watch. I say in that class you can strap in as many people as you can fit, you're allowed one pet hanging half out the window, and you have to have a bag of groceries not fall over in the cargo area during your sojourn around the course. Now that would be interesting and a lot of fun for the crowds. I'd be all over that one, lol!

[sik68]

I am totally with Greg and Ron on this... keeping it simple will keep the most engagement for participants and spectators alike. Everyone competes together (no run groups based on category). Just give each category a certain color decal or something.

Example:

Pro Open----------(the Danny Popp's - resumes req'd)
Pro Vintage-------(the Mark Stielow's - resumes req'd)
Amateur Open----(Your buddy with the M3)
Amateur Vintage--(Most of us on this site)

Exhibition/Show--(SEMA builds, race cars, etc)

[Sieg]

These guys might have the 'right' attitude:

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-vRnmz8v/0/L/i-vRnmz8v-L.jpg

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-q4hfHL7/0/L/i-q4hfHL7-L.jpg

http://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-9h9n35Z/0/L/i-9h9n35Z-L.jpg

:D

[GregWeld]

I LOVED THAT CAR!!! It was so kool and they had so much fun!!

[PTAddict]

Mark Stielow sent me his thoughts in an email this morning:

Pre-1980
Only 4 seaters
American Made
50% stock floor pans
Any 200 tread wear tires


Maybe 2 classes

Stock Chassis / Frame and no bigger that 275 tires

Modified chassis and mini tubbed any size tire

The easy way to go is work with the SCCA and make the CAM class the same as the Pro-Touring classes.

This is, not surprisingly, very sensible. I like the idea that you can have a class that doesn't require Stielow/Hobaugh levels of time/money investment to be competitive. And I also like that there is a class to push the limits on the traditional Pro-Touring definition. And the idea of SCCA/USCA crossover.

I still wonder about some kind of real streetability criteria in the final judging. Of course, it will be inevitably subjective, but so is the design section today. The enjoyment of driving a car regularly on the street encompasses a lot of factors - basic legal compliance, seat comfort, NHV, climate control, audio system, interior aesthetics, general responsiveness and predicability in control inputs, to name some of the most obvious. And there is also the subjective Cool Factor - does the car engage the car guys and the general public? What I see is that these criteria are currently of quite limited importance relative to track performance in the USCA world - despite the fact that "Street Car" is the middle name of the association.

Not at all to be negative of Optima and USCA - just the passion on this thread alone proves how important and energizing you folks are! Please keep doing this, and take all this input from us with the appropriate underlying tone of appreciation, and the appropriate grain of salt :)

[TheJDMan]

I built my car the way I wanted it with the intent to improve braking and handling and not to any pre-existing rulebook. So I'm really excited by the SCCA's new CAM class. I can easily meet the CAM rules but still have a highly modified suspension that would otherwise put me in a modified class competing against full blown race cars. Given SCCA's tendency to regulate class rules down to almost micro details, the CAM class is a breath of fresh air.

[cluxford]

Interesting 10 page read gentlemen, but bottom line is what you are trying to do in a round about way is answer the answerable question.

What is Pro-touring.

what makes one car more or less eligible than another car. The only difference in the question asked is creating a set of hard and fast rules to categorise cars into groups for results comparisons on the track.

An enviable goal, but one that will require many a late night over beer conversation to "agree to disagree".

[GrabberGT]

I think the points structure for the Style & Design portion needs a lot of work. For there to be as many stripped down race cars as it sounds like there were, the points for this category are way too close.

I hate to single anyone out but... I'lll pick on Ryan Mathews because his is the only one on the list I know for sure. (unless he did something different to the Monster Camaro) How is it within 3 points of a Ridler winner or even within a single point of any car there with a stock interior. His camaro is a stripped down race car. Although incredible well engineered, its style and design in my opinion are far less that what a stock interior represents in any of the others. The majority of the cars fell within the 17-18 point range for this segment and yet there is a HUGE disparity in street car vs race car amenities.

[Stielow]

The SCCA has started a CAM class.

I feel with a few tweeks the SCCA CAM class, Goodguys and USCA could use the same rules.

If the 3 groups could work togther we could have 3 places to run our cars under the same rules.

Classic American Muscle (CAM)

The purpose of CAM is to attract automobile enthusiasts to SCCA® who are currently interested in and/or participating in the Goodguys® Autocross events or other similar events for “classic” vehicles (e.g., Street Machine, Muscle Car, Hot Rod, Truck, Street Car, Late Model, etc.) built in North America by manufacturers based in the US (e.g., “The Big Three” – GM, Ford, and Chrysler).

Eligible Vehicles

• Vehicle must be considered a “street legal” (lights, wipers, etc.), US-domestic automobile of front-engine/RWD configuration or a “pick-up” truck. Must be licensed and insured.

• Vehicle must pass the mandatory safety inspection (tech) and be in compliance with Section 3, Vehicles, of the 2014 SCCA® National Solo® Rules.

• Vehicles must be 1984 or older.

• All body panels must be present in the original standard locations and may be modified or replaced. Exception: High-Boys (1954 and earlier), Roadsters (1954 and earlier), and Trucks (1940 and earlier) are not required to have fenders or hood sides.

• All glass must be present. Side glass components may be replaced by Lexan®.

• Interior must be finished and have minimum seating for two adults.

• The fuel tank/cell must be separated from the driver/passenger compartment by a metal panel/bulkhead. The fuel tank/cell shall not vent into the driver/passenger compartment.

Wheels and Tires

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

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

Body Electrical System

• Electrical components and wiring are unrestricted.

Brake System

• Brake system and components are unrestricted.

Suspension and Steering

• Suspension and steering components are unrestricted. Method of

attachment is unrestricted.

Engine and Drive Train

• Engine, drive train, and associated components (internal and external)

are unrestricted.

CAM –T (Traditional):

Gen 1-3 Mustang,
Gen 1 & 2 Camaro/Firebird,
Gen 1-3 Barracuda/Challenger, plus similar generation coupes/sedans going back to 1959

CAM –S (Sports): C1-3 Corvettes, Cobras, 2 seater AMX’s, Hot Rods

I would add the cars must maintain 90% of stock floor pans and maybe a minimum weight of 3000 - 3300lbs. No kit cars.
The minimum weight would keep the cars street cars.

I know this will not make everyone happy, but it would hit 80 percent of the cars.

Mark

[LS7 Z/28]

I would add the cars must maintain 90% of stock floor pans and maybe a minimum weight of 3000 - 3300lbs. No kit cars.
The minimum weight would keep the cars street cars.


I'm just a nobody, so my opinion really doesn't matter to the guys making the decisions within these organizations, but I really hope that a 90% stock floor pan rule is not put into effect. Otherwise I spent the last few years and a huge amount of my small salary building a car that won't be allowed to compete in any of the events.

I guess I don't see how having a custom floor in your car is enough of an advantage to disallow it. Especially if you have a minimum weight rule in effect.

Aluminum or some other light material on the floor would give you an advantage as far as total weight is concerned, but if you have a minimum weight rule then all of that goes out the window because if a car was under the minimum you would end up having to add lead ballast to the car.

My car has a custom floor that's made out of steel and I really didn't replace it because I thought it would be advantageous in any aspect, it was really more of a decision to make a safer structure to weld a rollcage to and properly attach the body to the chassis and it ended up around 20% stock floor pan.

Just my opinion I guess. I never thought I would ever be competitive in any of these events, but I definitely hoped to attend them and gain experience.

[GregWeld]

At the end of the day what is it that we want to achieve by actually using the cars we build?? We want to see if all the hard work and $$ and late nights actually pan out with a build that can perform (within all the limits of budget and talent and intent).

What have the good folks that run these events done for us? They've created a venue (several venues) in which there ARE NO RULES except some pretty basic ones - mostly safety... that are pretty "open" so that we can build "X" car and have a place to run it.

The beauty of track days is that a guy can go run and have fun with his buddies... There are plenty of these in every section of the country every weekend.

If a guy wants to be "competitive" within some class structure -- he can build a car to compete in whatever association he chooses. SCCA - NASA, or some other organization.

Isn't the beauty or the USCA/OUSCI events the fact that it's probably the only place that we can see so much diversity?

When I go to these events I know in advance that there's very few driver/car combos that can "win".... Hobaugh / Finch / Tucker / Mathews / Stielow / Maier / Pozzi / Popp.... They have the cars and the talent. While it's fun to watch these "pillars" duke it out... I love to see the other guys just out there pounding on their stuff - struggling - breaking - mending - meeting new friends and running on tracks they'd never ever get to drive on.

Why would we want to change that just to be able to declare someone the "winner". Aren't all of the participants winning in their own way?

[Blake Foster]

At the end of the day what is it that we want to achieve by actually using the cars we build?? We want to see if all the hard work and $$ and late nights actually pan out with a build that can perform (within all the limits of budget and talent and intent).

What have the good folks that run these events done for us? They've created a venue (several venues) in which there ARE NO RULES except some pretty basic ones - mostly safety... that are pretty "open" so that we can build "X" car and have a place to run it.

The beauty of track days is that a guy can go run and have fun with his buddies... There are plenty of these in every section of the country every weekend.

If a guy wants to be "competitive" within some class structure -- he can build a car to compete in whatever association he chooses. SCCA - NASA, or some other organization.

Isn't the beauty or the USCA/OUSCI events the fact that it's probably the only place that we can see so much diversity?

When I go to these events I know in advance that there's very few driver/car combos that can "win".... Hobaugh / Finch / Tucker / Mathews / Stielow / Maier / Pozzi / Popp.... They have the cars and the talent. While it's fun to watch these "pillars" duke it out... I love to see the other guys just out there pounding on their stuff - struggling - breaking - mending - meeting new friends and running on tracks they'd never ever get to drive on.

Why would we want to change that just to be able to declare someone the "winner". Aren't all of the participants winning in their own way?

You so right Grasshopper

[SSLance]

The SCCA has started a CAM class.

I feel with a few tweeks the SCCA CAM class, Goodguys and USCA could use the same rules.

If the 3 groups could work together we could have 3 places to run our cars under the same rules.

Classic American Muscle (CAM)

Eligible Vehicles

• Vehicles must be 1984 or older.



Mark,

Having people such as yourself giving input into this new way of classing our cars is a great thing, thanks. I've been involved with promoting the CAM class within the SCCA since before it was even called the CAM class. I agree a common ruleset between these groups would benefit everyone involved. This is the only real problem I see with your proposal is, why cut it off at 1984?

Ron Sutton's choice of using 1989 seems like a better cut off year if there has to be one. I don't know of any makes or models that changed drastically between 84 and 89 that would make any difference in these events. Why leave the late 80s car out?

I also don't see the need to separate out the CAM-T cars into their own class. Prepared equally, it has been shown that the CAM cars run virtually identical times as the CAM-T cars.

I'm just curious...what is the reason behind the "stock floor pan" rule? Is it to prevent mini tubbing to allow for larger rear tires? If so, why not just regulate the tire size instead? Seems like it would be much easier and clearer for teching said cars at registration.

.............

I think this thread is great...having all of this input really lays the cards out on the table and hopefully is taken into consideration by the powers that be when deciding on the future of all of these groups. I agree with Ron Sutton that these are all just each of our own ideas and opinions, none of them are wrong and none of them are right either. Please keep the ideas and opinions flowing...

[Vegas69]

If you look at the gap between Popp and Hobaugh, it's roughly 25 points. The simplest way I see to get things back to even and fair is more weight on the design portion of the event. After all, a street car should have design appeal vs. a race car. Say a scale of 50 max. A riddler gets close to 50 where a modern corvette would get closer to 25. I'm sure some math could make this pretty fair for all with averages.

I'll be surprised if they want to get serious about sanctioning with a big book of rules for classes.

[SSLance]

Hi Lance,

I wish you could have made it to SEMA & Optima this year. Both were a blast.



Me too Ron... Me too...


Looking at the final results from last weekend, it appears like positions 40 or so through 100 were basically dictated by the judging in the Design and Engineering portion of the event. That is disappointing to many I'm certain.

I know a lot of those drivers and I'm certain had I been there I would have been one in that section as well. I know all of them are chomping at the bit to see the actual spreadsheet with the details of their results so they can see "who did I beat in the autocross", and "where did I end up in the Speed Stop or Hot Lap" sections overall. I know most of these drivers did not have a chance at winning overall but I also know they are damn interested in how they did stack up to those around them in the actual events that were measured by a stop watch (even if it wasn't for the true overall win).

This is why I asked about your double points for street car functional features idea. Not specifically for each point calculation, but how this portion of the event can or should be used when determining the final outcome. I know the reason why this portion is used for one fifth of the points overall, but IMHO if this portion alone is going to determine spots 40-100...it needs to be a bit less subjective and a bit more detailed and laid out in advance.



Again, I would have loved to been there regardless and I'm making every effort I can to be there next year, regardless... I think it is still the best thing going for this segment of the automotive world...I'm just hoping with input from all of us we can make it even better for everyone.

[dontlifttoshift]

80% of us can run all three (GG,USCA, CAM) now.

I have to do a bunch of math, but I think restructuring the points system would level the playing field without even really changing anything. Run the three existing classes at the finale......_maybe_ add a vintage PT class for a total of 4 classes.

So now you have 4 class winners, AWD, GT2K, GT3K, and PT3K but still no Ultimate Street Car. Those four winners have a hard boiled egg eating contest, most eggs wins!:idea:

Kidding about the eggs, but less classes, less rules is still the answer.

[dontlifttoshift]

If you look at the gap between Popp and Hobaugh, it's roughly 25 points. The simplest way I see to get things back to even and fair is more weight on the design portion of the event. After all, a street car should have design appeal vs. a race car. Say a scale of 50 max. A riddler gets close to 50 where a modern corvette would get closer to 25. I'm sure some math could make this pretty fair for all with averages.

I'll be surprised if they want to get serious about sanctioning with a big book of rules for classes.

*Ridler

[PTAddict]

Mark,

I'm just curious...what is the reason behind the "stock floor pan" rule? Is it to prevent mini tubbing to allow for larger rear tires? If so, why not just regulate the tire size instead? Seems like it would be much easier and clearer for teching said cars at registration.



Just guessing at Mark's intent here, but one effect of maintaining stock floor pan is that it makes it much harder to create a full-on tube frame style race car with a dropped body on top. 90% original floor pan would still allow for lesser but popular mods like mini tubs and weld-through frame connectors.

[Stielow]

Mark,

Having people such as yourself giving input into this new way of classing our cars is a great thing, thanks. I've been involved with promoting the CAM class within the SCCA since before it was even called the CAM class. I agree a common ruleset between these groups would benefit everyone involved. This is the only real problem I see with your proposal is, why cut it off at 1984?

Ron Sutton's choice of using 1989 seems like a better cut off year if there has to be one. I don't know of any makes or models that changed drastically between 84 and 89 that would make any difference in these events. Why leave the late 80s car out?

I also don't see the need to separate out the CAM-T cars into their own class. Prepared equally, it has been shown that the CAM cars run virtually identical times as the CAM-T cars.

I'm just curious...what is the reason behind the "stock floor pan" rule? Is it to prevent mini tubbing to allow for larger rear tires? If so, why not just regulate the tire size instead? Seems like it would be much easier and clearer for teching said cars at registration.

.............

I think this thread is great...having all of this input really lays the cards out on the table and hopefully is taken into consideration by the powers that be when deciding on the future of all of these groups. I agree with Ron Sutton that these are all just each of our own ideas and opinions, none of them are wrong and none of them are right either. Please keep the ideas and opinions flowing...

The only reason I mentioned stock floor pans was to keep cost down. If there is a min. weight that would work.

I like pre-1989.

I don't want to kill myself to build a cool old car and go run against late model vehicles.

I do see a great opportunity to make one set of rules that could work with Goodguys, SCCA and OUSCI. If OUSCI wants one overall winner that is fine. Just make a class for the old cars or give the old cars more style or engineering points.

Mark

[Che70velle]

The only reason I mentioned stock floor pans was to keep cost down. If there is a min. weight that would work.

I like pre-1989.

I don't want to kill myself to build a cool old car and go run against late model vehicles.

I do see a great opportunity to make one set of rules that could work with Goodguys, SCCA and OUSCI. If OUSCI wants one overall winner that is fine. Just make a class for the old cars or give the old cars more style or engineering points.

Mark


Mark says it best. He doesn't want to kill himself to build a cool old car, and then be forced to go run against late model vehicles with numerous advantages, out of the box.

This is what will eventually thin the competitors.
This is what will eventually thin the spectators.
Sponsors won't stick around...
This is why classes AND rules are necessary. We have a great thing going here, it simply needs tweaking.

[GrabberGT]

Mark says it best. He doesn't want to kill himself to build a cool old car, and then be forced to go run against late model vehicles with numerous advantages, out of the box.

This is what will eventually thin the competitors.
This is what will eventually thin the spectators.
Sponsors won't stick around...
This is why classes AND rules are necessary. We have a great thing going here, it simply needs tweaking.

I agree with this mindset and add the street driving pre and post racing segments to prove its intent as a street car. Maybe as someone stated earlier, have a judge go for a parade lap in the car during the weigh-in process and rate the overall quality of the ride, access, NVH, and comfort of the car. If they have to climb over door bars to fit into a kirky race seat then it obviously will not score as high as someone with buckets and 3-point retractable belts. Adjust the S&D points to have more weight. As stated already, there is no reason a full on race car should be within 3 points of a Ridler winner.

[Ron in SoCal]

I don't disagree with your post above Chris, but I would not want to see an incentive for 3 point belts. The road course speeds are a bit hairy. :cheers:

Keep going fellas. I love the discussion. :bump:

[SSLance]

The only reason I mentioned stock floor pans was to keep cost down. If there is a min. weight that would work.

I like pre-1989.

I don't want to kill myself to build a cool old car and go run against late model vehicles.

I do see a great opportunity to make one set of rules that could work with Goodguys, SCCA and OUSCI. If OUSCI wants one overall winner that is fine. Just make a class for the old cars or give the old cars more style or engineering points.

Mark


That sounds great to me Mark, thanks for the response.

[pro71bird]

Those four winners have a hard boiled egg eating contest, most eggs wins!:idea:



My money is on Luke.......'Hey, Babaluga' 'Cool Hand Luke' ate 50 eggs.

[Sieg]

I agree with this mindset and add the street driving pre and post racing segments to prove its intent as a street car. Maybe as someone stated earlier, have a judge go for a parade lap in the car during the weigh-in process and rate the overall quality of the ride, access, NVH, and comfort of the car. If they have to climb over door bars to fit into a kirky race seat then it obviously will not score as high as someone with buckets and 3-point retractable belts. Adjust the S&D points to have more weight. As stated already, there is no reason a full on race car should be within 3 points of a Ridler winner.
Interesting points.

Being fortunate to ride in Hellfire from the strip out to the track on two different nights in average Vegas traffic what impressed me more than the shear power was how docile, quiet, and comfortable the car was.

I wouldn't think twice about taking on Power Tour or a Good Guys tour. As remarkable as the thermal engineering is considering power output, the engineering/effort that went into daily drivability is very impressive.

Ease of access, seating comfort, roll cage clearance, exterior visibility, gauge data and visibility, convenience lighting, storage space, ride comfort, clutch engagement, power delivery, low interior/exterior decibel levels, no detectable rattles, generous ground clearance, and it tracks dead straight.

I'm disappointed that I didn't take video on of one of the trips that would have shown people how docile a Street Car Hellfire really is.

One interesting qualifier for street car designation would be how would the average neighbor feel about hearing the car start and warm up at 6-7 am? Based on my observation less than 30% of the cars in the OUSCI pits would make for happy neighbors. :D

[LS7 Z/28]

One interesting qualifier for street car designation would be how would the average neighbor feel about hearing the car start and warm up at 6-7 am? Based on my observation less than 30% of the cars in the OUSCI pits would make for happy neighbors. :D
You like to hear that badass rumble just as much as the next guy does, don't give me that crap about yuppie neighbors being pissed off!
:bump: :twak:

They may be "Street Cars" but that doesn't mean they have to have the exhaust note of a Prius. :bigun2: :beavis:

[Flash68]

You like to hear that badass rumble just as much as the next guy does, don't give me that crap about yuppie neighbors being pissed off!
:bump: :twak:

They may be "Street Cars" but that doesn't mean they have to have the exhaust note of a Prius. :bigun2: :beavis:

You got that right... :D

"If it's too loud, you're too old!"

:bigun2:

[James OLC]

Mark says it best. He doesn't want to kill himself to build a cool old car, and then be forced to go run against late model vehicles with numerous advantages, out of the box.

This is what will eventually thin the competitors.
This is what will eventually thin the spectators.
Sponsors won't stick around...
This is why classes AND rules are necessary. We have a great thing going here, it simply needs tweaking.

On an event or series basis I will politely disagree with this.

I believe what you were saying is:

This is what will eventually thin the Pro-Touring focused competitors.
This is what will eventually thin the Pro-Touring focused spectators.
Pro-Touring focused Sponsors won't stick around...

From what I saw last weekend "we" are a small part of this overall concept yet "we" think we have some right of ownership to the idea. The enthusiasm and support that some of the :secret: import :secret: teams had was simply amazing and frankly put us to shame. And again, from what I saw, the import folks (new and old, competitive and not) were every bit as (if not more) excited and proud to be there as anyone. And, to be honest, they were younger than most of us. Appreciate them or not "they" are the next generation.

Jody's question here was what would a PT class look like and I think that there are several great answers to that. BUT there seems to be an assumption that OUSCI (or SSCA or GG) needs to change to suit us or they are going to fail. Not the case. The only potential loser in any of these cases is ourselves. We need to show THEM that we can be a part of their events and we can make them more successful. Personally I think that they know that - the reception that Smitty, Poorvette, and I received when we pulled off the track showed me that we put on a show for the fans - but I wouldn't expect them to cater to us exclusively.

As I said to one member last week at SEMA - why should the USCA (or OUSCI) define "us"? It's just one of many opportunities that we have to enjoy our cars but it's existence doesn't somehow dictate what we can or can not do.

Just my 2 bits

:underchair:

[Blake Foster]

Just reading James last post.
What do you suspect the posts look like on the C5,6,7 forums and the import forums.

Quote" God all we need to do is get rid of those slow old cars and have a really cool event of our own" .............. lol

:waveflag:

[96z28ss]

On an event or series basis I will politely disagree with this.


From what I saw last weekend "we" are a small part of this overall concept yet "we" think we have some right of ownership to the idea.

:underchair:

This weekend sure. However since 2008 the field was mostly pro-touring cars. That's why we kind of all feel we should still be a part of it.

[Vegas69]

On an event or series basis I will politely disagree with this.

I believe what you were saying is:

This is what will eventually thin the Pro-Touring focused competitors.
This is what will eventually thin the Pro-Touring focused spectators.
Pro-Touring focused Sponsors won't stick around...

From what I saw last weekend "we" are a small part of this overall concept yet "we" think we have some right of ownership to the idea. The enthusiasm and support that some of the :secret: import :secret: teams had was simply amazing and frankly put us to shame. And again, from what I saw, the import folks (new and old, competitive and not) were every bit as (if not more) excited and proud to be there as anyone. And, to be honest, they were younger than most of us. Appreciate them or not "they" are the next generation.

Jody's question here was what would a PT class look like and I think that there are several great answers to that. BUT there seems to be an assumption that OUSCI (or SSCA or GG) needs to change to suit us or they are going to fail. Not the case. The only potential loser in any of these cases is ourselves. We need to show THEM that we can be a part of their events and we can make them more successful. Personally I think that they know that - the reception that Smitty, Poorvette, and I received when we pulled off the track showed me that we put on a show for the fans - but I wouldn't expect them to cater to us exclusively.

As I said to one member last week at SEMA - why should the USCA (or OUSCI) define "us"? It's just one of many opportunities that we have to enjoy our cars but it's existence doesn't somehow dictate what we can or can not do.

Just my 2 bits

:underchair:

Couldn't agree more. The fact is that there are a handful of names from this segment that are competitive that are recurring. It needs fresh blood to attract new attention to the series if it's to make it.

Optima is doing it for one reason, exposure.

[Cris@JCG]

I can see vendors that have sponsored the event from the beginning having a influence on changes required to make this more fair for the future especially the vendors that sell parts for Pro-Touring cars.. but as I was told by one of the highly respected board members here.. We have a choice! to participate or not to participate..

The rules will also have some impact on participation.. The biggest rumor going on @ SEMA this year for OUSCI was aero being banned for 2015 because this one guy wrote a letter to USCA complaining that was un-fair(BTW the guy was in the top 10).. So if writing a letter to USCA can change a rule.. Then if most of the board members here wrote a letter to USCA to have a class for Pro-Touring cars then we might have a chance of it being implemented.. Just saying!

Class 1 champion pre- 89
Class2 champion 89 to present
Class3 champion sports car
Just examples..

Overall grand champion from the field of 100 cars!

At least this gives more participates a chance to win something.. USCA & OUSCI has to acknowledge that @ least 50 to 60% of the field is there to try to win.. anybody that participated add up there receipts yet on what it cost to spend a week in Vegas plus car prep?

The bottom line it was a honor to be invited to the event! I had a blast & have some great memories.. will I try next to attend the events to win my way thru points.. don't know yet.. right now looking on how to build an all wheel drive C3 Corvette!

[chetly]

Me too Ron... Me too...


Looking at the final results from last weekend, it appears like positions 40 or so through 100 were basically dictated by the judging in the Design and Engineering portion of the event. That is disappointing to many I'm certain.

I know a lot of those drivers and I'm certain had I been there I would have been one in that section as well. I know all of them are chomping at the bit to see the actual spreadsheet with the details of their results so they can see "who did I beat in the autocross", and "where did I end up in the Speed Stop or Hot Lap" sections overall. I know most of these drivers did not have a chance at winning overall but I also know they are damn interested in how they did stack up to those around them in the actual events that were measured by a stop watch (even if it wasn't for the true overall win).

This is why I asked about your double points for street car functional features idea. Not specifically for each point calculation, but how this portion of the event can or should be used when determining the final outcome. I know the reason why this portion is used for one fifth of the points overall, but IMHO if this portion alone is going to determine spots 40-100...it needs to be a bit less subjective and a bit more detailed and laid out in advance.



Again, I would have loved to been there regardless and I'm making every effort I can to be there next year, regardless... I think it is still the best thing going for this segment of the automotive world...I'm just hoping with input from all of us we can make it even better for everyone..


Agreed, I would have liked to seen however many cars were there giving points. I.E. Danny got 1st on the hot lap so he gets 106, or whatever the car count is. Last place finisher gets one. You'd at least be able to tell who you faster/slower than...

[Matt@BOS]

.


Agreed, I would have liked to seen however many cars were there giving points. I.E. Danny got 1st on the hot lap so he gets 106, or whatever the car count is. Last place finisher gets one. You'd at least be able to tell who you faster/slower than...

I like that idea. My second thought is that it would make it impossible to have a season ling points standing if there are 60 people at one event and 40 at the next.

[Neil B]

This happens to every race series once it gains attention and actually means something to win. A race car and driver are simply tools. He who brings the best tool for the job wins. Rules define the best tool. Simple as that. Why build a 6-figure pro-touring car and then get schooled by a gutted C5? Just sayin'.

[chetly]

I like that idea. My second thought is that it would make it impossible to have a season long points standing if there are 60 people at one event and 40 at the next.

Don't need to do it for the seasonal races, just the finals where everyone is thrown in together under 1 class.

[James OLC]

The difficult things is that, are far as I can see, there is nothing that can or could have been done that would have made a difference in the results. Brian Hobaugh (6th) is the highest finishing Vintage competitor... If the newer cars had received zero design points... or Brian had received double design points... he would have finished 3rd but (I think) the results would feel contrived and it still wouldn't really have been close. Mike Maier (13th) would have needed triple design points to come out on top, as would Mark.

Mark has said on a couple of occasions that our Vintage cars simply can't defy the laws of physics - no matter how badly we want them to. Perhaps that is part of the solution...

In the absence of a Vintage or Pro-Touring Class maybe (aftermarket) aero could be banned (or assessed a catastrophic penalty) for cars later than 1990 while remaining open for cars 1989 and older. Aero would have to include wings, spoilers, and belly pans but would some how need to take OEM products into account. This would at least allow us to gain some ground.

But it wouldn't be a silver bullet.

Perhaps bonus points based on age? Regardless the solution, I don't want anything that makes the results seem contrived. Today we have a situation where the better cars and drivers won and/or placed higher - no question about it. It the rules were adjusted such that WE had an unfair advantage the series would deteriorate faster than you can imagine.

[57hemicuda]

The style side of this has always been a question to most of us anyway. How can something like Brian's widebody Vette or Camaro finish behind a late model with wheels and maybe a bolt on wing. Its so subjective, one is so modified from the original factory design, and one is a factory car with some bolt ons. In the that case the style points should be awarded to car manufacturer not the owner, because nothing changed on the car except a few bolt ons.

Lets face it, there is nothing that can be done to make everyone happy. Someone will always feel that like some part of this isn't fair. Hey, I think its not fair that Danny and Mark can out drive me.

In the end, I don't think any of us want this to go away. And I think most of us agree that a thick rule book is not what we want either. I do like the pre and post what ever year we choose, and the 200 tread wear, because it somewhat levels the playing field. That would be enough for me. Lets keep building cool cars, and lets ride.

[65_LS1_T56]

The style side of this has always been a question to most of us anyway. How can something like Brian's widebody Vette or Camaro finish behind a late model with wheels and maybe a bolt on wing. Its so subjective, one is so modified from the original factory design, and one is a factory car with some bolt ons. In the that case the style points should be awarded to car manufacturer not the owner, because nothing changed on the car except a few bolt ons.

Lets face it, there is nothing that can be done to make everyone happy. Someone will always feel that like some part of this isn't fair. Hey, I think its not fair that Danny and Mark and out drive me.

In the end, I don't think any of us want this to go away. And I think most of us agree that a thick rule book is not what we want either. I do like the pre and post what ever year we choose, and the 200 tread wear, because it somewhat levels the playing field. That would be enough for me. Lets keep building cool cars, and lets ride.

RonS for President! :flag2:

[71RS/SS396]

I personally don't like the idea of docking cars points for rollbars that are difficult to climb over, or seats that are difficult to get in. These items are safety related imho, these cars are to damn fast now to not have these things on a road course. I'm at the point with mine now where I'm backing out of the throttle down the straights at tracks like Vir because it badly needs aero to be safe at the speeds it's capable of.

[71RS/SS396]

The style side of this has always been a question to most of us anyway. How can something like Brian's widebody Vette or Camaro finish behind a late model with wheels and maybe a bolt on wing. Its so subjective, one is so modified from the original factory design, and one is a factory car with some bolt ons. In the that case the style points should be awarded to car manufacturer not the owner, because nothing changed on the car except a few bolt ons.

Lets face it, there is nothing that can be done to make everyone happy. Someone will always feel that like some part of this isn't fair. Hey, I think its not fair that Danny and Mark and out drive me.

In the end, I don't think any of us want this to go away. And I think most of us agree that a thick rule book is not what we want either. I do like the pre and post what ever year we choose, and the 200 tread wear, because it somewhat levels the playing field. That would be enough for me. Lets keep building cool cars, and lets ride.

Actually Ron, Brian's vette is not all that modified, other than the flares it's pretty much bolt on parts.

[57hemicuda]

Tim, my test for modifications is: If it gives me wood when I see it, then its pretty modified. Brian's midyear, yeah wood.

[LS7 Z/28]

I personally don't like the idea of docking cars points for rollbars that are difficult to climb over, or seats that are difficult to get in. These items are safety related imho, these cars are to damn fast now to not have these things on a road course. I'm at the point with mine now where I'm backing out of the throttle down the straights at tracks like Vir because it badly needs aero to be safe at the speeds it's capable of.

I agree with you 100%

I don't understand when people say things like "if you have race seats and door bars to climb over then you should lose points in the judging portion"

I think the people who don't have at least a 4 point cage, harnesses and safer than stock seats properly installed; should be the ones who lose points for endangering themselves, sort of like a cop writing you a ticket for not wearing your belt.

There are definitely ways to integrate safety equipment into your car and keep the street functionality of it. There should be no excuses.

I can't believe people run the speed they do on the roadcourse and then justify the fact that they don't have those safety items in their car by saying things like "well my car is a street car and I use it a lot so I don't want a roll cage, harnesses and race seats"

Well, if you're attending events like the USCA puts on then you are using it for much more than just street driving. Whether it's cost, lack of understanding or just a mentality that a person wants to keep their car a "street car" I just don't understand how someone can justify putting themselves at risk.

[71RS/SS396]

Tim, my test for modifications is: If it gives me wood when I see it, then its pretty modified. Brian's midyear, yeah wood.

TMI Not really interested in your erectile situation! :D :action-smiley-027:

[dontlifttoshift]

TMI Not really interested in your erectile situation! :D :action-smiley-027:

......then that was a poor choice in which smiley to use.

Maybe they should use Ron's "meter" for the judging portion......

[James OLC]

I personally don't like the idea of docking cars points for rollbars that are difficult to climb over, or seats that are difficult to get in. These items are safety related imho, these cars are to damn fast now to not have these things on a road course. I'm at the point with mine now where I'm backing out of the throttle down the straights at tracks like Vir because it badly needs aero to be safe at the speeds it's capable of.

That is possible one of the most important contributions to this conversation. Nothing will hurt the series more than penalizing competitors for safety in order to satisfy spectators desire to prove how much of a street car these are.

At the end of the day we are out there driving running in these events because we want to - not because we have to - and we are pushing our cars, and ourselves, to satisfy our own desire to challenge ourselves and enjoy our car. Folks are not going to go that if they do not feel safe. There was a fair bit of talk at SEMA about the need for MORE safety equipment in the faster cars and how to ensure that we can all have fun, put on a good show, and be safe. For non-competitors to suggest that faster (or any) drivers should somehow put themselves at risk to be more "stock" is unrealistic and unfair.

[71RS/SS396]

......then that was a poor choice in which smiley to use.

Maybe they should use Ron's "meter" for the judging portion......

Lol! you're probably right

[GregWeld]

I'm sorry -- but I get a chuckle out of the posts that suggest "the series will go away"....


People are racing to get in! AND they just DOUBLED the field to 100 from 50... This show was the biggest baddest show since the inception... with more sponsors and double the amount of competitors. So where does this idea come from that says if they don't change they won'd survive? WTF? Because "one of our guys" didn't win... the entire thing is a flop? LOL

[GregWeld]

The 2014 USCA Optima Ultimate Street Car Invitational was awesome. Had a great time, and if you have a chance you really need to attend these events.

In the finals it's "run what you brung"; no classes for individual cars.But what would a pro-touring class look like if there were classes for competitors? I'd love to hear your thoughts. :thumbsup:




It would look just like HellFire
Caged without being race car caged - stereo - big brakes - big motor - big G's.... and drive it from LA to Tampa and be happy doing it. LOL THAT is "Pro Touring".

[onevoice]

.

I can't think of any competition sanctioning body that has achieved long term success & staying power without multiple classes/divisions.

A.[/B] After the novelty wears off of "just being able to participate" ... entrants that are way out of their league ... performance wise ... fall away.

D. Having multiple classes or divisions allows a larger number of potential entrants to participate with others in performance ranges closer to their levels of talent, budget & car capabilities. ...

E. The sub-classes help pay for the show. There are WAY more people who can compete at a lower level ... and they want to compete in the cool event … provided there is a place they fit in well. ... Plus, these are the guys that actually buy parts from the sponsors & displaying vendors, .
.

Ron wrote the answer a couple pages ago, and it wouldn't be that hard to implement. After all is said and done, have a unlimited class, and several logical classes under it. That approach has worked great for the Hot Rod drag week competition. Their event sells out in a matter of minutes with over 300 cars attending. Spectators turn out at all the tracks, and the event is live broadcast on the net. Forget all the discussion about what makes a "streetable car" and go with the qualifier of if someone is willing to drive the damn thing on the street and it is legal, then it is OK for unlimited. If someone wants to build a silhouette 69 camaro with a F1 chassis under the bodywork, and is willing to drive it on the street, go for it. Everyone has a different personal version of what is streetable, and in the Hot Rod world there are guys willing to drive 1000 + miles in a week in a ProMod car with a funny car style cage, more power to them. Everyone loves the unlimited cars and their low 6 second 220+mph runs but there is also plenty of room for the average guy in a backyard built car running the daily driver class and everyone in between.

Throw the whole BS judging points out the window, this isn't figure skating. There is nothing gained from it.

You are never going to stop the advancement of technology, and there will always be someone with more money to spend. Embrace it and enjoy the ride.

[71RS/SS396]

That is possible one of the most important contributions to this conversation. Nothing will hurt the series more than penalizing competitors for safety in order to satisfy spectators desire to prove how much of a street car these are.

At the end of the day we are out there driving running in these events because we want to - not because we have to - and we are pushing our cars, and ourselves, to satisfy our own desire to challenge ourselves and enjoy our car. Folks are not going to go that if they do not feel safe. There was a fair bit of talk at SEMA about the need for MORE safety equipment in the faster cars and how to ensure that we can all have fun, put on a good show, and be safe. For non-competitors to suggest that faster (or any) drivers should somehow put themselves at risk to be more "stock" is unrealistic and unfair.

I agree James, it seems to be the big elephant in the room and a line nobody wants to step over. Cages should be REQUIRED to run in the faster class. Most of, if not all (mine included) of the cars do not have enough cage in them to be safe considering how heavy these cars are and the speeds they're capable of.
I know it will probably get into a whole bunch of legal liabilities with certification.... etc, but I'm sure there will be a lawsuit if someone is injured badly or god forbid someone dies in a crash.
I don't care how good the driver is, things can happen on the track that you can't control. I had a guy in a Ferrari blow an engine right in front of me at corner 10 exit at Vir in the spring, I drove through oil at probably well over 100 mph and went off sideways through the grass, it could have been very bad had the ground been soft and the tires dug in.

[Musclerodz]

I just started reading this thread. I'm suprised it took till page 13 for someone to bring up the topic of safety and discuss it. During the USCA days and GG events, the small tracks and slower speeds was not as big of an issue, now we are running big tracks at race car speeds without race car safety in alot of the cars competing. I think everyone has been extremely lucky that nothing catastrophic has happened yet. If is not a matter of "if", its a matter of "when".

[EBMC]

I agree James, it seems to be the big elephant in the room and a line nobody wants to step over. Cages should be REQUIRED to run in the faster class. Most of, if not all (mine included) of the cars do not have enough cage in them to be safe considering how heavy these cars are and the speeds they're capable of.
I know it will probably get into a whole bunch of legal liabilities with certification.... etc, but I'm sure there will be a lawsuit if someone is injured badly or god forbid someone dies in a crash.
I don't care how good the driver is, things can happen on the track that you can't control. I had a guy in a Ferrari blow an engine right in front of me at corner 10 exit at Vir in the spring, I drove through oil at probably well over 100 mph and went off sideways through the grass, it could have been very bad had the ground been soft and the tires dug in.

This has always been a big concern of mine. A lot of these cars are very high horespower, not set up for track, drivers that arent expeirienced in a " race" environment and may push things too hard because they feel thats what their car and cababilities SHOULD be able to do. Things can go wrong very quick no matter who you are. Its going to have to be addressed.

[GrabberGT]

That is possible one of the most important contributions to this conversation. Nothing will hurt the series more than penalizing competitors for safety in order to satisfy spectators desire to prove how much of a street car these are.

At the end of the day we are out there driving running in these events because we want to - not because we have to - and we are pushing our cars, and ourselves, to satisfy our own desire to challenge ourselves and enjoy our car. Folks are not going to go that if they do not feel safe. There was a fair bit of talk at SEMA about the need for MORE safety equipment in the faster cars and how to ensure that we can all have fun, put on a good show, and be safe. For non-competitors to suggest that faster (or any) drivers should somehow put themselves at risk to be more "stock" is unrealistic and unfair.

"Non-Competitor" here... Im only stating my opinion as others are. My car will never have the style, fit, finish, or speed necessary to be competitive in any aspect of these events no matter what the rules are and Im fine with that. I just like to drive my car and do the best I can with what I have. What I do care about though is to continue seeing our segment thrive in these events. I believe there needs to be a class structure as you and others have defined already. In addition, I believe the streetcar aspects need to be emphasized more.

My thoughts on streetcar judging isnt for a car with safety equipment to be penalized but to provide more criteria to judge a cars true street friendliness. Its "Streetcar" challenge after-all. If you have to climb thru a cage in order to get in and out of a car, have limited visibility due to race seats, and cant effectively check your blind spots due to being harnessed in, then in my opinion it isnt very street friendly.

To address the other concern about going this fast without such safety items. Maybe we shouldn't be. In other organizations, you and your car have to qualify to go "XXX" speeds. Why not here? Can I take my car to Silver State and run 150 right out of the gate? Heck no. Can I run 10's in the 1/4? Nope. Can I run in the fastest group at a NASA event? Nah.

Now having said that, lets look again at the scenario. A street car scoring high in the Streetcar side likely doesnt qualify to do the speeds the more race oriented car can do. (Unless your Steilow and drive a car like Hellfire) Its a points tradeoff. Nobody said the Ultimate Streetcar has to be the absolute fastest.

Just some thoughts

[71RS/SS396]

"Non-Competitor" here... Im only stating my opinion as others are. My car will never have the style, fit, finish, or speed necessary to be competitive in any aspect of these events no matter what the rules are and Im fine with that. I just like to drive my car and do the best I can with what I have. What I do care about though is to continue seeing our segment thrive in these events. I believe there needs to be a class structure as you and others have defined already. In addition, I believe the streetcar aspects need to be emphasized more.

My thoughts on streetcar judging isnt for a car with safety equipment to be penalized but to provide more criteria to judge a cars true street friendliness. Its "Streetcar" challenge after-all. If you have to climb thru a cage in order to get in and out of a car, have limited visibility due to race seats, and cant effectively check your blind spots due to being harnessed in, then in my opinion it isnt very street friendly.

To address the other concern about going this fast without such safety items. Maybe we shouldn't be. In other organizations, you and your car have to qualify to go "XXX" speeds. Why not here? Can I take my car to Silver State and run 150 right out of the gate? Heck no. Can I run 10's in the 1/4? Nope. Can I run in the fastest group at a NASA event? Nah.

Now having said that, lets look again at the scenario. A street car scoring high in the Streetcar side likely doesnt qualify to do the speeds the more race oriented car can do. (Unless your Steilow and drive a car like Hellfire) Its a points tradeoff. Nobody said the Ultimate Streetcar has to be the absolute fastest.

Just some thoughts

Chris, have you ever been in a truly fast car on a big road course, not the little infield course we ran at TMS? I'm talking somewhere like Vir or Road America.
I bet if I put a stock seat and a 3 point belt in the passenger side and took out at Vir you wouldn't be able to stay in the seat.

[GrabberGT]

Chris, have you ever been in a truly fast car on a big road course, not the little infield course we ran at TMS? I'm talking somewhere like Vir or Road America.
I bet if I put a stock seat and a 3 point belt in the passenger side and took out at Vir you wouldn't be able to stay in the seat.

You'll get no argument out of me on this. I fully agree. The point is, if all you have is a stock seat and 3 point belts, should you be allowed to go fast enough to get thrown out of the seat? That person showed up to the event to hang out, have a good time, and compete in a "Streetcar" event. This car is more Streetcar than the DSE White Monster Camaro but doesnt stand a chance against it. There's a 25 point spread allocated to the top so many cars for speed. If youre out of that range you get 1 point. Maybe we should award the points for the racing the same as the Style and Design event. Give 15 points for just for crossing the start/finish line and a possible 10 more based on how fast you can go. If the streetcar is not allowed to compete at the speeds of the Monster Camaro, should it be judged in the same group?

For the record, I have 6-point harness, seats, and plans to eventually add a roll bar. I still dont plan to drive 150 but at least I'll feel better about driving 100ish on a road course.

[71RS/SS396]

You'll get no argument out of me on this. I fully agree. The point is, if all you have is a stock seat and 3 point belts, should you be allowed to go fast enough to get thrown out of the seat? That person showed up to the event to hang out, have a good time, and compete in a "Streetcar" event. This car is more Streetcar than the DSE White Monster Camaro but doesnt stand a chance against it. There's a 25 point spread allocated to the top so many cars for speed. If youre out of that range you get 1 point. Maybe we should award the points for the racing the same as the Style and Design event. Give 15 points for just for crossing the start/finish line and a possible 10 more based on how fast you can go. If the streetcar is not allowed to compete at the speeds of the Monster Camaro, should it be judged in the same group?

For the record, I have 6-point harness, seats, and plans to eventually add a roll bar. I still dont plan to drive 150 but at least I'll feel better about driving 100ish on a road course.

Last I checked this is a driving competition, right? If it wasn't then there wouldn't be 3 out of the 5 segments being performance based.
Some of what you've suggested penalizes a car with proper safety equipment in the name of what an opinion of a street car should be. Everyone has a tolerance level for what they want to put up with for extended driving.
I'm 100% against penalizing a car for safety related equipment, diluting the competition by giving the guy with the 3 point belt extra credit as a street car could chase away the properly prepared cars and then will it truly be the Ultimate Street Car?

[GregWeld]

Chris, have you ever been in a truly fast car on a big road course, not the little infield course we ran at TMS? I'm talking somewhere like Vir or Road America.
I bet if I put a stock seat and a 3 point belt in the passenger side and took out at Vir you wouldn't be able to stay in the seat.


TOTALLY AGREE!!!!

[Ron in SoCal]

I don't disagree with your post above Chris, but I would not want to see an incentive for 3 point belts. The road course speeds are a bit hairy. :cheers:

Keep going fellas. I love the discussion. :bump:

Glad you guys finally caught up :sarcasm_smiley:

[71RS/SS396]

Glad you guys finally caught up :sarcasm_smiley:

Anyone ever tell you that self quoting is like speaking about yourself in the third person? :sarcasm_smiley: :D :D

[GregWeld]

Anyone ever tell you that self quoting is like speaking about yourself in the third person? :sarcasm_smiley: :D :D



It's kinda like a Self Selfie... or photobombing your own photo?!?! LOL

[Ron in SoCal]

Yep. Pretty lame. Good thing I'm not a pro athlete ... :D

As Dave would say, "Next."

[Vince@Meanstreets]

That is possible one of the most important contributions to this conversation. Nothing will hurt the series more than penalizing competitors for safety in order to satisfy spectators desire to prove how much of a street car these are.

At the end of the day we are out there driving running in these events because we want to - not because we have to - and we are pushing our cars, and ourselves, to satisfy our own desire to challenge ourselves and enjoy our car. Folks are not going to go that if they do not feel safe. There was a fair bit of talk at SEMA about the need for MORE safety equipment in the faster cars and how to ensure that we can all have fun, put on a good show, and be safe. For non-competitors to suggest that faster (or any) drivers should somehow put themselves at risk to be more "stock" is unrealistic and unfair.

I think its time to lose the term Street car all together. We are starting to see the birth of Strace cars. Street legal Race cars. Lets not kid ourselves.

I remember when 700HP was a hard to reach goals, now its the norm.

[GrabberGT]

I think its time to lose the term Street car all together. We are starting to see the birth of Strace cars. Street legal Race cars. Lets not kid ourselves.

I remember when 700HP was a hard to reach goals, now its the norm.

Well dont leave us hanging. Exactly how will this new class be defined. We expect to see a definitive line drawn between the 2 categories. This will allow is to properly debate how it will be scored to give the "Stow" (street show) cars a fighting chance. :sarcasm_smiley:


The more we talk about it, the more I find myself thinking of Rons idea of an Unlimited class. AKA Strace Car.

[GregWeld]

Well dont leave us hanging. Exactly how will this new class be defined. We expect to see a definitive line drawn between the 2 categories. This will allow is to properly debate how it will be scored to give the "Stow" (street show) cars a fighting chance. :sarcasm_smiley:


The more we talk about it, the more I find myself thinking of Rons idea of an Unlimited class. AKA Strace Car.



Street/Race Cars unlimited and "all others"?? This gives you two classes... but would you still want to see an overall winner? That to me is where this class issue begins to breaks down. Hard to have "a" winner that anyone would be okay with... The discussion starts to come full circle in a us against them... because "we" can't win. "We" being Pro Touring.

Pro-Touring just isn't a large enough audience. They (USCA) struggled at every event to fill the spaces required. And as far as selling the TV show... the PT crowd just isn't all that well known (yet) or followed except by "us". WE think it's the greatest thing ever... But "We" are a few thousand people....

Don't get me wrong.... I have two race cars that I'd love to be able to run at these events. So I'd be happy to see a full on race car class - but then that's just selfish and has nothing to do with these events (which I've traveled 1000's of miles to support, since day one, without ever having a car in any of them).


My personal feeling is -- once you have definitions and classes... those with the skills / bank / desire - will find a way to trump all of the written rules... And what will that lead to? More expensive builds - cutting out more and more people that can't "compete". Then this whole thing would be super boring.

[DBasher]

Looking at the sponsors from this year most of em sell to the muscle car crowd, doesn't it make sense to ad a class? Call it muscle car and put a year break in....done. No more rules just another class, the rules get refined every year, or at least the rule breakers get frowned upon:secret:
The other thing is the "PT" crowd needs to stop talking about it and go do it! I'd hate to see this turn into a tuner, AWD, new car series.

:popcorn2:
Dan

[TheJDMan]

As everyone knows, a true race car is built to conform to a pre-existing set of rules for the class in which in which it will be competing. As a result these rules are typically very specific in nature to deal with specific issues that have come up previously.

The problem here is that we are discussing a set of rules which need to cover an entire segment of cars built to what ever level using what ever parts the individual owners chose. The result is that pro-touring cars have no commonality of parts or form. From that stand point any competition rules must of necessity be general in nature. This is why, IMO, the SCCA CAM class makes so much sense.

I give SCCA a great deal of credit for recognizing pro-touring and pro-mod as an emerging automotive segment which emphasizes well rounded car performance not just straight line speed and which did not fit well into any of their existing competition classes. It is apparent that SCCA is actively attempting to attract these pro-touring cars to attend their events with the introduction of the CAM class.

IMO, the obvious solution here is for the USCA to simply adopt the existing CAM class rules and run a CAM class next year in addition to the current classes. I see no logical reason to spend a lot of time and energy to reinvent the wheel that SCCA already has in place. It also seems to me that NASA, GG, etc. would be smart to adopt the CAM class rules as well which would go a long way to creating a uniform set of rules which would allow PT cars to compete in multiple events across multiple organizations.

[Vegas69]

This is going to be unpopular but I don't see this deal getting that big or gaining that much traction. It's time trials with no engagement for the fans. The crowds aren't big enough to support the secondary vendors pocket books.

Step back and take your personal interest to run or root for a competitor out of the equation.

I do think it has the capacity to prosper with Optima footing the bill. I'm just not sure they won't find a better place for the resources at some point.

Hate to be a pessimist, that's just the way I see it.

[DBasher]

"Every party needs a pooper that's why we invited you, party pooper"
Well except you're right. I can only hope that the people that are being paid to promote this can get'er done next year.

[James OLC]

Looking at the sponsors from this year most of em sell to the muscle car crowd, doesn't it make sense to ad a class? Call it muscle car and put a year break in....done. No more rules just another class, the rules get refined every year, or at least the rule breakers get frowned upon:secret:
The other thing is the "PT" crowd needs to stop talking about it and go do it! I'd hate to see this turn into a tuner, AWD, new car series.

:popcorn2:
Dan

Sponsors:

OPTIMA Batteries
BFGoodrich
Detroit Speed
Jet Hot Coating
K&N Filters
Lingenfelter
Red Line Oil
Ride Tech
Wilwood
Holley
Intercomp
Snap-On
Racing Junk
Showtime Motorsports

Which one is dependant on Pro-Touring? Yeah... none of them.

I for one hope that we never find ourselves competing to be the "Ultimate CAM or CAM Equivalent Street Car"

As Greg said with support (fan support included if this year is any indication) the OUSCI event is not going anywhere for a while.

[DBasher]

Sponsors:

OPTIMA Batteries
BFGoodrich
Detroit Speed
Jet Hot Coating
K&N Filters
Lingenfelter
Red Line Oil
Ride Tech
Wilwood
Holley
Intercomp
Snap-On
Racing Junk
Showtime Motorsports

Which one is dependant on Pro-Touring? Yeah... none of them.

Never said anything about dependent on PT. Quite a few have a specific line of parts geared toward what most on this site are doing though. James, just because another class exists doesn't mean you'd be pigeon holed, stay in the GT class and continue having fun!

:cheers:

[SSLance]

It is apparent that SCCA is actively attempting to attract these pro-touring cars to attend their events with the introduction of the CAM class.

IMO, the obvious solution here is for the USCA to simply adopt the existing CAM class rules and run a CAM class next year in addition to the current classes. I see no logical reason to spend a lot of time and energy to reinvent the wheel that SCCA already has in place. It also seems to me that NASA, GG, etc. would be smart to adopt the CAM class rules as well which would go a long way to creating a uniform set of rules which would allow PT cars to compete in multiple events across multiple organizations.

The problem I see with that is...the same thing happened at the SCCA CAM Pro-Solo invitational. Some race cars on street tires showed up and dominated all 3 classes giving the larger numbers of real PT street cars a sour taste in their mouth.

The SCCA has realized this and that is why they went to OUSCI this year and are working with OUSCI and GGs to find a solution to this that will hopefully give all of the above cars a fun place to compete on level playing fields.

Maybe "sour taste" is a bit of a stretch, we all still had a blast. Probably not unlike how the bottom half of the OUSCI crowd felt. A long time veteran of the SCCA asked me though during the Pro-Solo if "this is what I envisioned the CAM class becoming" while watching the race cars on street tires...and I replied "No". But with just one or two simple rules, the race cars can be split from the street cars by class and we all still get to go out and have fun and put on a show for those watching.

[ironworks]

This is going to be unpopular but I don't see this deal getting that big or gaining that much traction. It's time trials with no engagement for the fans. The crowds aren't big enough to support the secondary vendors pocket books.

Step back and take your personal interest to run or root for a competitor out of the equation.

I do think it has the capacity to prosper with Optima footing the bill. I'm just not sure they won't find a better place for the resources at some point.

Hate to be a pessimist, that's just the way I see it.

I think your forgetting that this is on TV. The vendors are looking for exposure through that and will get it.

Just like off road racing, the best thing that ever happened to that line of racing is TV exposure so guys can get multi million dollar sponsorship deals. Gilla Monsters and the citizens of Mexico could care less about the whose name is on the side of the truck as it goes by at 100 plus mph.

[SSLance]

Alright, how about this:

3 classes of cars for USCA, one determines the Ultimate Street Car Champion, the other two let the under series cars and drivers compete against cars like their own for their own trophy and recognition.

..................

Street Car Unlimited = Current OUSCI rules, winner determines the Ultimate Street Car Champion

Classic American Muscle = American made, factory steel body, 1989 and older, 200 TW tires with 275 or smaller front tires, stock appearing or fully finished interior, minimum weight 3000 pounds

Classic American Muscle Extreme = American made, factory steel body, 1989 and older, 200 TW tires any size, minimum weight 2800 pounds.

..................

These classes could be used at all of the USCA qualifying events and the Invitational, replacing the GTK2, GTK3, and AWD classes.

The Classic American Muscle and Classic American Muscle Extreme ruleset could also be used in the SCCA for their CAM classes. The cars in Street Car Unlimited generally already have appropriate competitive classes to run in with the SCCA.

The Classic American Muscle and Classic American Muscle Extreme could also be used in the Good Guys but change the model year to 1973. They could also do their PRO and truck classes, or whatever else they do (I'm not that familiar with the Good Guys ruleset).

..................

How the OUSCI distributes their points during the events can remain pretty much the same or be tweaked upon a bit. The only change I'd like to see is maybe a the number of total points available be as much or more than the number of entrants in any class so there aren't a bunch of cars with 1 point per event.

..................

The above class structure would put all of the late model Corvettes Camaros and Mustangs in the same class with the fast imports at the OUSCI. It would also let the PT cars run in one of two classes depending on their level of prep. Clean simple easy...yet fair and level playing field for all three groups.

[96z28ss]

Sponsors:

OPTIMA Batteries
BFGoodrich
Detroit Speed
Jet Hot Coating
K&N Filters
Lingenfelter
Red Line Oil
Ride Tech
Wilwood
Holley
Intercomp
Snap-On
Racing Junk
Showtime Motorsports

Which one is dependant on Pro-Touring? Yeah... none of them.



I think you have some on that list that are dependant on pro-touring and majority of there revenue is vintage cars pre 1989.

I can't believe you listed DSE. I'm guessing 95% of there business is pro-touring. They only have late model Camaro stuff. 5 pages out of 125, of their catalog.

Ride tech they have systems and components that work on everything that has wheels on it. I bet most of their sales is in the pro-touring and vintage car market.

[Blake Foster]

Chris, have you ever been in a truly fast car on a big road course, not the little infield course we ran at TMS? I'm talking somewhere like Vir or Road America.
I bet if I put a stock seat and a 3 point belt in the passenger side and took out at Vir you wouldn't be able to stay in the seat.

We went out to Thunderhill in my Nova with Jay driving me in the pass seat. please excuse the language in the following sentence.

but as a passenger scared the SH!T out of me. and yea there is NO WAY you could have stayed in the seat like described above.

[Che70velle]

On an event or series basis I will politely disagree with this.

I believe what you were saying is:

This is what will eventually thin the Pro-Touring focused competitors.
This is what will eventually thin the Pro-Touring focused spectators.
Pro-Touring focused Sponsors won't stick around...

From what I saw last weekend "we" are a small part of this overall concept yet "we" think we have some right of ownership to the idea. The enthusiasm and support that some of the :secret: import :secret: teams had was simply amazing and frankly put us to shame. And again, from what I saw, the import folks (new and old, competitive and not) were every bit as (if not more) excited and proud to be there as anyone. And, to be honest, they were younger than most of us. Appreciate them or not "they" are the next generation.

Jody's question here was what would a PT class look like and I think that there are several great answers to that. BUT there seems to be an assumption that OUSCI (or SSCA or GG) needs to change to suit us or they are going to fail. Not the case. The only potential loser in any of these cases is ourselves. We need to show THEM that we can be a part of their events and we can make them more successful. Personally I think that they know that - the reception that Smitty, Poorvette, and I received when we pulled off the track showed me that we put on a show for the fans - but I wouldn't expect them to cater to us exclusively.

As I said to one member last week at SEMA - why should the USCA (or OUSCI) define "us"? It's just one of many opportunities that we have to enjoy our cars but it's existence doesn't somehow dictate what we can or can not do.

Just my 2 bits

:underchair:

James, this is exactly what I was saying. I don't really care about the import racers, spectators, or sponsors (gasp!), or even the late model guys sponsors, etc. What I do care about is fair racing, because I am a racer. Been involved in racing since the early 90's.
Do we not have some ownership in this deal? It's totally irrelevant, but I'm glad that the import crowd seemed excited to be there. They should be excited to be there, when they know that they are out gunning a bunch of old cars. So I'll say it again, I'm interested in fairness. I do appreciate the younger crowd, the next generation, as you called them. I hope they stick around, and possibly even catch on to what "we" are all shooting for, which is trying to up the performance levels of our old cars, and then instead of street racing, which is stupid, find a venue to compete against ONE ANOTHER, in fairness. As Mark said, and I'll say this again, I don't want build a cool old car, and then go run it against late model cars. Well I don't either. In fact, come springtime and I pull into some of these venues, I'll be downright upset, if I have to face off against an all wheel drive import. That's not what I'm building my car for. So why not have a class just for those of us with old cars? Let the late model guys race against themselves!
The performance parts that me and you are purchasing today, for our old cars, were bred and designed out of the desire to make our cars more competitive against each other, due to events and series like these. If the future of these organizations cater to the late model guys, and the "Pro Touring" community gets left behind, then "we" suffer. At the end of the day, it's all just a hobby for us on this side. Hopefully the promotors will listen to the little guys, and at least keep this hobby fair.
Jody, I don't know if there is a correct answer to your question...

My .02 pesos...

[glassman]

I think your forgetting that this is on TV. The vendors are looking for exposure through that and will get it.

Just like off road racing, the best thing that ever happened to that line of racing is TV exposure so guys can get multi million dollar sponsorship deals. Gilla Monsters and the citizens of Mexico could care less about the whose name is on the side of the truck as it goes by at 100 plus mph.

Totally agree.
And from what Rodney was telling me, this is the number one rated show on MAVTV. Or at least one episode was. Its a small network now but.....who knows?

[TheJDMan]

The problem I see with that is...the same thing happened at the SCCA CAM Pro-Solo invitational. Some race cars on street tires showed up and dominated all 3 classes giving the larger numbers of real PT street cars a sour taste in their mouth.

The SCCA has realized this and that is why they went to OUSCI this year and are working with OUSCI and GGs to find a solution to this that will hopefully give all of the above cars a fun place to compete on level playing fields.

Maybe "sour taste" is a bit of a stretch, we all still had a blast. Probably not unlike how the bottom half of the OUSCI crowd felt. A long time veteran of the SCCA asked me though during the Pro-Solo if "this is what I envisioned the CAM class becoming" while watching the race cars on street tires...and I replied "No". But with just one or two simple rules, the race cars can be split from the street cars by class and we all still get to go out and have fun and put on a show for those watching.

Lance,
So you're saying that with one or two minor changes the CAM class should work as intended, yes?

[SSLance]

Yes, I think so... Here are the results from the SCCA Nationals last September...Combined times from both East and West course

CAM-T
Mike Dusold 1967 Camaro 129.6977
Robby Unser 1964 Nova 132.058
Stephen Yeoh 1969 Camaro 132.245
Alan Schoonmaker 1969 Camaro 133.657
Jason Smith 1964 Nova 138.985

CAM-S
Scott Fraser 1966 Cobra 126.342
Bruce Cambern 1966 Cobra 132.812

CAM-C
Keith Lamming 2011 Camaro 132.906
Mike Trenkle 1985 Mustang 133.218
Lance Hamilton 1985 Monte Carlo 135.534
Chris Brake 2005 Ford Mustang 137.434
Kelley Jaeger 1985 Mustang 139.905
Stephanie Stribling 2005 Mustang 140.011
Valerie Pichette 1988 Pontiac GTA 142.701



Where they would have finished under my scenario of CAM and CAM Extreme


CAM
Robby Unser 1964 Nova 132.058
Stephen Yeoh 1969 Camaro 132.245
Alan Schoonmaker 1969 Camaro 133.657
Lance Hamilton 1985 Monte Carlo 135.534
Jason Smith 1964 Nova 138.985
Valerie Pichette 1988 Pontiac GTA 142.701

All very similarly prepped and looking cars

CAM Extreme
Mike Dusold 1967 Camaro 129.6977
Mike Trenkle 1985 Mustang 133.218 (315s all the way around)
Kelley Jaeger 1985 Mustang 139.905


These cars would have fit into other already existing SCCA classes that they are competitive in

Scott Fraser 1966 Cobra 126.342 XP I think
Bruce Cambern 1966 Cobra 132.812 XP I think
Keith Lamming 2011 Camaro 132.906 FS
Chris Brake 2005 Ford Mustang 137.434 ESP I believe
Stephanie Stribling 2005 Mustang 140.011 ESP I believe


I think we all ran better times on Tuesday on the West course, here are our best times just from that day:

CAM
Stephen Yeoh 1969 Camaro 64.181
Robby Unser 1964 Nova 64.607
Alan Schoonmaker 1969 Camaro 64.936
Lance Hamilton 1985 Monte Carlo 64.958
Jason Smith 1964 Nova 67.927
Valerie Pichette 1988 Pontiac GTA 68.811


CAM Extreme
Mike Dusold 1967 Camaro 62.764
Mike Trenkle 1985 Mustang 64.042
Kelley Jaeger 1985 Mustang 67.802

To me, those two groupings just look like more evenly matched cars and times. Dusold's 1967 Camaro is Extreme I think we'd all agree and Trenkle's Mustang is similar looking. All of the cars in CAM were stock sheetmetal, small tired, but all with very modified drivetrains and the top 4 were within 3/4s of a second of each other.

These below just didn't fit in in my opinion, all for different reasons.

Scott Fraser 1966 Cobra 61.335
Bruce Cambern 1966 Cobra 63.463
Keith Lamming 2011 Camaro 64.672
Chris Brake 2005 Ford Mustang 66.801
Stephanie Stribling 2005 Mustang 67.913

If I could find the results for the Pro Solo Invitational qualifying times, the results would be similar only the Extreme would be more represented by the 3 Lesinger vehicles (with respective times) and CAM would be more represented by several stock sheet metal'd small tire muscle cars. There were also more late model Mustangs and 5th gen Camaros that were constantly putting down better times than the CAM cars.

[chetly]

Yes, I think so... Here are the results from the SCCA Nationals last September...Combined times from both East and West course

CAM-T
Mike Dusold 1967 Camaro 129.6977
Robby Unser 1964 Nova 132.058
Stephen Yeoh 1969 Camaro 132.245
Alan Schoonmaker 1969 Camaro 133.657
Jason Smith 1964 Nova 138.985

CAM-S
Scott Fraser 1966 Cobra 126.342
Bruce Cambern 1966 Cobra 132.812

CAM-C
Keith Lamming 2011 Camaro 132.906
Mike Trenkle 1985 Mustang 133.218
Lance Hamilton 1985 Monte Carlo 135.534
Chris Brake 2005 Ford Mustang 137.434
Kelley Jaeger 1985 Mustang 139.905
Stephanie Stribling 2005 Mustang 140.011
Valerie Pichette 1988 Pontiac GTA 142.701



Where they would have finished under my scenario of CAM and CAM Extreme


CAM
Robby Unser 1964 Nova 132.058
Stephen Yeoh 1969 Camaro 132.245
Alan Schoonmaker 1969 Camaro 133.657
Lance Hamilton 1985 Monte Carlo 135.534
Jason Smith 1964 Nova 138.985
Valerie Pichette 1988 Pontiac GTA 142.701

All very similarly prepped and looking cars

CAM Extreme
Mike Dusold 1967 Camaro 129.6977
Mike Trenkle 1985 Mustang 133.218 (315s all the way around)
Kelley Jaeger 1985 Mustang 139.905


These cars would have fit into other already existing SCCA classes that they are competitive in

Scott Fraser 1966 Cobra 126.342 XP I think
Bruce Cambern 1966 Cobra 132.812 XP I think
Keith Lamming 2011 Camaro 132.906 FS
Chris Brake 2005 Ford Mustang 137.434 ESP I believe
Stephanie Stribling 2005 Mustang 140.011 ESP I believe


I think we all ran better times on Tuesday on the West course, here are our best times just from that day:

CAM
Stephen Yeoh 1969 Camaro 64.181
Robby Unser 1964 Nova 64.607
Alan Schoonmaker 1969 Camaro 64.936
Lance Hamilton 1985 Monte Carlo 64.958
Jason Smith 1964 Nova 67.927
Valerie Pichette 1988 Pontiac GTA 68.811


CAM Extreme
Mike Dusold 1967 Camaro 62.764
Mike Trenkle 1985 Mustang 64.042
Kelley Jaeger 1985 Mustang 67.802

To me, those two groupings just look like more evenly matched cars and times. Dusold's 1967 Camaro is Extreme I think we'd all agree and Trenkle's Mustang is similar looking. All of the cars in CAM were stock sheetmetal, small tired, but all with very modified drivetrains and the top 4 were within 3/4s of a second of each other.

These below just didn't fit in in my opinion, all for different reasons.

Scott Fraser 1966 Cobra 61.335
Bruce Cambern 1966 Cobra 63.463
Keith Lamming 2011 Camaro 64.672
Chris Brake 2005 Ford Mustang 66.801
Stephanie Stribling 2005 Mustang 67.913

If I could find the results for the Pro Solo Invitational qualifying times, the results would be similar only the Extreme would be more represented by the 3 Lesinger vehicles (with respective times) and CAM would be more represented by several stock sheet metal'd small tire muscle cars. There were also more late model Mustangs and 5th gen Camaros that were constantly putting down better times than the CAM cars.


What you may or may not realize is the amount of modifications to the cars your kicking out of CAM may put them in classes that require r-comp tires, not street tires. Maybe those people don't want to run race rubber, or can't run nationals on certain days.
I don't see where your classes are anymore fair than the current classes. The time difference between 1st and worse is still in the 9-10 second range. You in fact drop one position. Until SCCA starts seeing a heavier participation of the CAM classes then they will more than likely stand with the current.

[preston]

I think what made and makes Optima special is that they pick beautiful and interesting cars. Its starting to morph more towards the "ultimate street car" side of things but what originally made it so unique and interesting ? It was because they were picking normal show cars and extreme builds and it gave us all a chance to see how they would really perform. A few late models as a benchmark was fine, but it seems like we are all deep into discussing it as a truly competitive race event now. I feel like there are a hundred places to go and reace for real, maybe they don't all accomodate old iron as well as you would like but if I was Optima I would stick more to the invitiational format, and look for interesting show cars, old cars, and unique builds with the idea that we are just throwing them together to see how they perform, less than "we are having a psuedo-race to sort of crown a time trail type champion of street legal cars".

That's my take on it - less about racing and more about seeing cool cars perform, because there are dozens of other time trial and race venues, Optima was unique because of the types of cars they invite.

[JKnight]

You're right on Preston, every word of it. What made the optima event special and interesting is not what makes for a "fair" race.

[Vegas69]

Really strong points Preston. You can race your way in, use humility, be invited to participate. The balance of cars was excellent this year. Vintage, makes, colors, noises, etc.. It seems difficult to sanction. That was where my comments came from, it's a great event that is a luxury for the competitors and will continue as long as sponsors see value.

Rodger makes a valid point, it's made for TV. I just see it as a show that will lose it's luster like every other reality show. Judging by the crowd and rules, the racing won't sustain it.

[indydave]

I mostly lurk here but have some inside perspective on some of this, in particular with SCCA's CAM class.

My "insider" status comes from I wrote the rules for the Indianapolis Region that SCCA used to create CAM and I'm personal friends with Raleigh and Velma Boreen, the couple from SCCA who have been representing SCCA @ Optima last week and GG this week. Raleigh is employed by SCCA and one of his charges is plotting the direction of CAM.

Comparing CAM to the Optima series is an apples to oranges deal. Optima is a dedicated series while CAM is a class (soon to be a category, more on that further down) within SCCA's Solo program. Further, CAM is what's considered within Solo as a "Regional" class. That means the class is not eligible for National Championship status nor is it an included class at SCCA National Tour events (Champ Tour, Match Tour, Pro-Solo). It can and has been added as a supplemental class at many Tour eventsand as most are aware, it was added as an Invitational supplemental class during the Pro-Solo Finale as well as a supplemental class(es) at the Solo Nationals. The winners of those events are not recognized by SCCA as National Champions, just winners of those classes at that event.

The purpose of CAM is not to compete with USCA, GG, or anyone else but rather to give people with PT type cars, street machines, and hot rods a class at local SCCA Solo events. Since these cars are not built to a ruleset, under the standard SCCA Solo rules structure, Regions would class cars that showed up where they think they should go. Don't need to go into all that as most of you know what those problems were. People would show up with a street machine, run an event or two, then be gone. CAM hopes to solve that problem and by and by large it has. Many Regions have reported that participation in CAM has been very good and that's what SCCA was after. Get people to come to (Regional) events and keep coming. It's working.

When I wrote the rules for the Indy Region I took GG's rules, copied them, then changed things to make sure they fit SCCA safety rules. I used their rules because they were the most open and strictly autocross focused. When SCCA National got involved they spent an entire year talking to organizations and competitors as to what they wanted to see. CAM was what came from those conversations. SCCA published the rules and asked Regions to play with the class to see what works best. Comparing CAM to what Optima / USCA does will never be 100% the same because of the differences in scope of either bodies events.

Now that I've bored all of you to tears with my long winded dissertation, here's what happening with CAM as I know it and why some of the things being suggested here probably won't see the light of day in CAM. I've have ben given the suggested ruleset for CAM 2015 and here's the highlights:

-CAM will become a category with 3 classes with the classes similar to the rules used for the CAM Invitational and Supplemental CAM classes at the Solo Nationals. Those classes as proposed are:
CAM/T- open to older American made front engine, rear wheel drive cars originally built with minimum of four seats with cutoffs being not being an arbitrary model year but rather by model generations.
CAM/C- open to late model American made front engine, rear wheel drive cars originally built with a minimum of four seats.
CAM/S- open to American made front engine, rear wheel drive cars originally built with 2 seats as well as kit cars and vintage hot rods.

-an exclusions list that outlaw C-5 and newer Corvettes, Vipers, and boutique manufacturer super cars as well as subcompact cars from the seventies such as the Vega, Pinto, et-al.

-the rest of the rules proposed would carry over from 2014. There are some things that are still very fluid such as proposed minimum weights and what subcompact cars are to be included on the exclusions list.

-that CAM remain a Regional only class for the foreseeable future. National status for the class for the class was by and large not a concern for most competitors when asked.

-also proposed are a minimum of 2 special events just for CAM class car in addition to the CAM Invitational. One event would be out west, the other in the Midwest. These events would be qualifiers to earn invitations for the CAM Invitational. These events would be either be run as a Pro Solo or a Match Tour pending site locations.

-What didn't make the cut was limiting tire section width and chassis limits. At the Regional level, this simply has not been an issue and surveying class competitors at the Region level it just wasn't a concern for the majority. The chances of a Josh Leisenger showing up with the Crusher II Corvette at a local SCCA Solo are remote at best. At the "special" events proposed, both formats use a "dial" to help even the competition between the classes. Those dials are based on the fast qualifier's time for each class and is someone goes faster than the dial during competition the faster time becomes that individual competitor's personal dial.

Now I will agree with those who say that organizers like Optima should look into creating a class for vintage cars. I've followed the series from the beginning and yes, traditional PT cars are beginning to fall behind.

Last thing, SCCA wants to set and announce the 2015 CAM rules by the PRI show, hopefully sooner. Stay tuned.....

[GrabberGT]

.....

Please tell me Maverick will not be considered a sub compact.

[Sieg]

Thanks for taking the time to give us insight Dave.

Much appreciated. :thumbsup:

[indydave]

Please tell me Maverick will not be considered a sub compact.

No. The cars in question are the Vega (and it's variants), Pinto (and it's variants), Mustang II, Monza (and it's variants) and potentially the Gremlin.

[Flash68]

I think what made and makes Optima special is that they pick beautiful and interesting cars. Its starting to morph more towards the "ultimate street car" side of things but what originally made it so unique and interesting ? It was because they were picking normal show cars and extreme builds and it gave us all a chance to see how they would really perform. A few late models as a benchmark was fine, but it seems like we are all deep into discussing it as a truly competitive race event now. I feel like there are a hundred places to go and reace for real, maybe they don't all accomodate old iron as well as you would like but if I was Optima I would stick more to the invitiational format, and look for interesting show cars, old cars, and unique builds with the idea that we are just throwing them together to see how they perform, less than "we are having a psuedo-race to sort of crown a time trail type champion of street legal cars".

That's my take on it - less about racing and more about seeing cool cars perform, because there are dozens of other time trial and race venues, Optima was unique because of the types of cars they invite.

Well done Preston.

[SSLance]

I've have ben given the suggested ruleset for CAM 2015 and here's the highlights:

-CAM will become a category with 3 classes with the classes similar to the rules used for the CAM Invitational and Supplemental CAM classes at the Solo Nationals. Those classes as proposed are:
CAM/T- open to older American made front engine, rear wheel drive cars originally built with minimum of four seats with cutoffs being not being an arbitrary model year but rather by model generations.
CAM/C- open to late model American made front engine, rear wheel drive cars originally built with a minimum of four seats.
CAM/S- open to American made front engine, rear wheel drive cars originally built with 2 seats as well as kit cars and vintage hot rods.

-an exclusions list that outlaw C-5 and newer Corvettes, Vipers, and boutique manufacturer super cars as well as subcompact cars from the seventies such as the Vega, Pinto, et-al.

-the rest of the rules proposed would carry over from 2014. There are some things that are still very fluid such as proposed minimum weights and what subcompact cars are to be included on the exclusions list.

-that CAM remain a Regional only class for the foreseeable future. National status for the class for the class was by and large not a concern for most competitors when asked.

-also proposed are a minimum of 2 special events just for CAM class car in addition to the CAM Invitational. One event would be out west, the other in the Midwest. These events would be qualifiers to earn invitations for the CAM Invitational. These events would be either be run as a Pro Solo or a Match Tour pending site locations.

-What didn't make the cut was limiting tire section width and chassis limits. At the Regional level, this simply has not been an issue and surveying class competitors at the Region level it just wasn't a concern for the majority. The chances of a Josh Leisenger showing up with the Crusher II Corvette at a local SCCA Solo are remote at best. At the "special" events proposed, both formats use a "dial" to help even the competition between the classes. Those dials are based on the fast qualifier's time for each class and is someone goes faster than the dial during competition the faster time becomes that individual competitor's personal dial.




Well... That is disappointing.

On a local Regional level I'm fine with it, but not having a legitimate National Class that would split the field up in a competitive nature is a mistake.

Any 3000 pound car made before 1989 is not going to be fast without modifications, many modifications. Any 3000 pound car made before 1989 can be made to be just as fast as any other 3000 pound car with unlimited modifications. Why bother splitting them up by arbitrary model year?

Leave it to the SCCA... **rolleyes**

[SSLance]

What you may or may not realize is the amount of modifications to the cars your kicking out of CAM may put them in classes that require r-comp tires, not street tires. Maybe those people don't want to run race rubber, or can't run nationals on certain days.
I don't see where your classes are anymore fair than the current classes. The time difference between 1st and worse is still in the 9-10 second range. You in fact drop one position. Until SCCA starts seeing a heavier participation of the CAM classes then they will more than likely stand with the current.


Those late model cars came to CAM because it was easy picking considering the classes they were running in before. I had to race my car in Street Modified the first year I ran, against Evos on Slicks. See the difference?

[SSLance]

I don't see where your classes are anymore fair than the current classes. The time difference between 1st and worse is still in the 9-10 second range. You in fact drop one position.

CAM
Stephen Yeoh 1969 Camaro 64.181
Robby Unser 1964 Nova 64.607 <------------- Same Car
Alan Schoonmaker 1969 Camaro 64.936
Lance Hamilton 1985 Monte Carlo 64.958
Jason Smith 1964 Nova 67.927 <------------ Same Car
Valerie Pichette 1988 Pontiac GTA 68.811


CAM Extreme
Mike Dusold 1967 Camaro 62.764
Mike Trenkle 1985 Mustang 64.042 <----- Same Car
Kelley Jaeger 1985 Mustang 67.802 <----- Same Car


Alan and Stephen drove the same 1969 Camaro as well. As said above, you can't class out the driver. The good drivers are going to be near the top no matter what they are driving.

The numbers and results from the Pro-Solo were much more glaring, with more of each type of car represented. I wish I could find those dial in times. The actual race of the Pro-Solo was half wet have dry so those results were inconsistent.

[SSLance]

I found the dial in times of the Pro-Solo. I don't think the 78.321 for Dusold is correct because I know the CAM-T dial in was a few tenths slower than the CAM-C dial in.


CAM/S drivers were in order they qualified:
1) Josh Leisinger 1964 Corvette 76.327
2) Scott Frazier 1965 Ford Cobra 76.508
3) Bruce Cambern 1965 Ford Cobra 79.211

CAM/T
1) Mike Dusold 1968 Camaro 78.321
2) Robbie Unser 1964 Nova 79.471
3) Alan Schoonmaker 1969 Z/28 Camaro 79.762
4) Andrew Chenoweth 1970 Challenger 81.653
5) Jared Leisinger 1970 Chev C10 82.095
6) Jinx Jordan 1969 Camaro Z/28 82.780
7) Kurt Chenoweth 1970 Challenger R/T 84.319
8) Don Knop 1966 Shelby Mustang 350GTH 84.778
9) Karen Leisinger 1970 Camaro 87.859
10) Justin Dermody 1978 Trans Am 88.430
11) Craig Worm 1969 Camaro RS 94.354
12) Shawn McNeil 1971 Skylark 101.216

CAM/C
1) Dave Feighner 1995 Mustang Cobra R 78.321
2) Marcus Merideth 2007 2007 Mustang Shelby 79.182
3) Jennifer Merideth 2007 Mustang Shelby 79.455
4) Dave Dusterberg 2005 Mustang GT 81.033
5) Jeremiah Stotler 2010 Camaro 81.726
6) Lorien Feighner 2012 Mustang GT 81.998
7) Keith Lamming 2011 Camaro SS 82.021
8) John Fehring 2000 Trans Am 82.177
9) Lance Hamilton Monte Carlo SS 83.386




How they would have been split up under my proposal. Pay more attention to the times than the finishing order. The late model cars dominated both the CAM and CAM Extreme except in just a few cases of the very best drivers in the other cars.


CAM
2) Robbie Unser 1964 Nova 79.471
3) Alan Schoonmaker 1969 Z/28 Camaro 79.762
4) Andrew Chenoweth 1970 Challenger 81.653
6) Jinx Jordan 1969 Camaro Z/28 82.780
9) Lance Hamilton 1985 Monte Carlo SS 83.386
7) Kurt Chenoweth 1970 Challenger R/T 84.319
8) Don Knop 1966 Shelby Mustang 350GTH 84.778
10) Justin Dermody 1978 Trans Am 88.430
11) Craig Worm 1969 Camaro RS 94.354
12) Shawn McNeil 1971 Skylark 101.216

CAM Extreme
1) Mike Dusold 1968 Camaro 78.321
5) Jared Leisinger 1970 Chev C10 82.095
9) Karen Leisinger 1970 Camaro 87.859

Other SCCA Class
1) Dave Feighner 1995 Mustang Cobra R 78.321
2) Marcus Merideth 2007 2007 Mustang Shelby 79.182
3) Jennifer Merideth 2007 Mustang Shelby 79.455
4) Dave Dusterberg 2005 Mustang GT 81.033
5) Jeremiah Stotler 2010 Camaro 81.726
6) Lorien Feighner 2012 Mustang GT 81.998
7) Keith Lamming 2011 Camaro SS 82.021
8) John Fehring 2000 Trans Am 82.177

[chichirone]

Best car and best driver will win in any class or set of rules a governing body attempts to design. We can all try to create a "fair" set of rules, but just like life, nothing is "fair". Run what ya brung. Keep it simple. I personally like the proposed rules from Dave for those reasons. Amy and I run with Mike Dusold often. We get shellacked but do we care. No. We have a blast. He is an awesome guy and teacher. Our times improve as his times improve.

If you don't like it don't run it. I personally do not run SCCA events. Not because of rules but because of the 5-7 minutes of track time I get for the 12 hr commitment. I'll go to USCA events, pay the registration fee, and get 10,000x's the amount of track time and instruction ALL DAY long. The classes need some tweaking for safety reasons as others have pointed out but other than that, let builders and drivers innovate, design and bring whatever they want. I really don't care about rules as long as they do not compromise safety.

Another concept is, If you don't like it, design your own. A group of us have worked with our local auto cross coordinators (Equipe Rapide) to set up private auto cross and speed stop events. We get to do 20+ runs and with the addition of speed/stop it will be closer to 40+. We pay for course workers so participants DO NOT work the course. Ride along with other participants. We provide lunch and we have had some generous sponsors such as Speedtek, Firewheel Classics, West Bend Dyno, H&H Racing Engines and others give us a little money or discounts to help pay for the track rental and have some giveaways after the dust settles.

In 2015 we are looking to do 4 events. All run what ya brung. Maybe adding a drag strip element to it since most of the participants are not comfortable on a road course. We have 3 classes similar to Good-Guy's. Pro, Experienced, Novice. The primary difference is we recognize more than just the fastest participants. We take a podium approach and then have a few fun awards. Fastest noob. Slowest award. Cone killer award. Most entertaining wipeout. The list goes on but you get the drift. We want to highlight camaraderie. We recognize achievements for great times and performance, but we also know we have to keep it friendly for everyone. We do our best to recognize the differing levels of ability. Something missing from the USCA IMO.

I don't envy Jimi at all. He and the USCA will never make everyone happy. The greatest issue with PT cars is they don't show up. A lot of energy is put into designing a PT rule set but where are all the cars?

My .02!

[craig510]

I think the new CAM rules sound great. I just hope there is no minimum weight for CAM/S. I am in the parts gathering phase for my '28 Ford hot rod and don't want to add 1000# of lead.

[chetly]

Those late model cars came to CAM because it was easy picking considering the classes they were running in before. I had to race my car in Street Modified the first year I ran, against Evos on Slicks. See the difference?

That's the facts of life with autocross, people are going to always want to go where it's going to be easier to win. There are people all over the US that are changing their cars yearly based on what cars are in what class. It happens.

[indydave]

That's the facts of life with autocross, people are going to always want to go where it's going to be easier to win. There are people all over the US that are changing their cars yearly based on what cars are in what class. It happens.

That's not entirely true. In our Region, the influx of late model cars in CAM was due to the open nature of the rules and the ability to be competitive. The classes where a late model Mustang or Camaro falls on street tires in the normal SCCA structure puts them up against all wheel drive cars like the Evo and STi. And that's given that the mods on the muscle car doesn't push them beyond that and into race tire classes. To a man (or woman) competitor I've talked to with late model cars in CAM are there because they like not having to worry about rules.

[indydave]

Well... That is disappointing.

On a local Regional level I'm fine with it, but not having a legitimate National Class that would split the field up in a competitive nature is a mistake.

Any 3000 pound car made before 1989 is not going to be fast without modifications, many modifications. Any 3000 pound car made before 1989 can be made to be just as fast as any other 3000 pound car with unlimited modifications. Why bother splitting them up by arbitrary model year?

Leave it to the SCCA... **rolleyes**

Hence why the classes aren't being split by an arbitrary model year, rather platform generations. Example: To say to someone with a 1990 Camaro that their car isn't legal for the class when it's the same car as an 1989 is silly. You can say "Well, we can make an exception". Why? Instead just say Camaros 1 through 3 are in this class, 4th and 5th generation Camaros are in that class. Or however the split is decided.

Also to start splitting by amount of modifications is counter to what CAM is. It is a hot rodders' class. Hot rodding is about modifying one's car for better performance and style. If one chooses to only go so far with a build, that's up to them. The whole idea of all of this regardless of whether it's SCCA, Optima, GG, whoever, is to give a place for hot rodders some way to show off their driving and building skills.

CAM doesn't need to be a National Championship class. As I said before, the majority of respondents when asked about "National" status said it wasn't important. Also, competitors wanting step beyond local competition has several avenues to follow now. They can run Optima, GG, or whoever else that offers a larger stage to perform on. Or with some changes, a competitor can enter SCCA's "national" stage in one of the many classes that already exist. Is SCCA planning some special CAM focused events? You bet. But they are being planned as "experience" events. The focus will be more on the experience than the intense competition focus that SCCA National events have. The focus will be on SCCA showing entrants a good time, something people will want to do again because it was a blast to be there.

[SSLance]

This thread was started because the late models and imports dominated the PT cars at the OUSCI. Some thought there might need to be some sort of rule change made to help everyone still be able to participate without being dominated unfairly.

The exact same discussion was being held by those that participated in the CAM Pro Solo prior to OUSCI and I knew that the SCCA guys were watching the OUSCI to see how it went.

I felt it was the perfect opportunity to make something good...better. Thats all. I'll still play in both arenas regardless, and I'll still have a blast.

[Showtimedriver]

"What would a USCA Pro touring class look like" hmmmm. The USCA conducted 10 events this year and Pro Touring cars won 5 of them (Over 3K). The Over 3K class had the lion share of entries at each race this year so maybe the USCA needs to look at the three classes they currently have first. Then decide from there. Having classes throughout the season is fine for trying to qualify for the OUSCI event, but in the end it all comes down to one big race with no classes at all during the grand finale. So why have any classes at all? I think the reason we are having this conversation is because of the caliber of cars that raced last weekend. Some Pro Touring and some super mosquito EVO's (who did a great job by the way), some 5th Gens, some Porsches, some GTR's! So why have a special class for Pro Touring? They won it last year, they didn't this year.

That is one way to look at it.

The other way is to make sure we keep these great cars coming back to race and make them relevant in every race the USCA conducts and the OUSCI. Mark Stielow said it perfectly. He could race a 5th Gen Camaro, spend half the money that it takes to build a killer 1st Gen Camaro and be successful with it. But that's not what he wants to do or what he is about. Hellfire is a superb example of what a 1969 Camaro would look like if it was built today....only better! That car was by far and away the fastest car on the strait away on the Las Vegas road course at the OUSCI, nobody could touch him. So to preserve this legacy that we call Pro Touring might be is we need to have a separate class for them, yet still compete overall. They are not over the hill yet! It would keep them competing through out the season and at the OUSCI.

[camcojb]

"What would a USCA Pro touring class look like" hmmmm. The USCA conducted 10 events this year and Pro Touring cars won 5 of them (Over 3K). The Over 3K class had the lion share of entries at each race this year so maybe the USCA needs to look at the three classes they currently have first. Then decide from there. Having classes throughout the season is fine for trying to qualify for the OUSCI event, but in the end it all comes down to one big race with no classes at all during the grand finale. So why have any classes at all? I think the reason we are having this conversation is because of the caliber of cars that raced last weekend. Some Pro Touring and some super mosquito EVO's (who did a great job by the way), some 5th Gens, some Porsches, some GTR's! So why have a special class for Pro Touring? They won it last year, they didn't this year.

That is one way to look at it.

The other way is to make sure we keep these great cars coming back to race and make them relevant in every race the USCA conducts and the OUSCI. Mark Stielow said it perfectly. He could race a 5th Gen Camaro, spend half the money that it takes to build a killer 1st Gen Camaro and be successful with it. But that's not what he wants to do or what he is about. Hellfire is a superb example of what a 1969 Camaro would look like if it was built today....only better! That car was by far and away the fastest car on the strait away on the Las Vegas road course at the OUSCI, nobody could touch him. So to preserve this legacy that we call Pro Touring might be is we need to have a separate class for them, yet still compete overall. They are not over the hill yet! It would keep them competing through out the season and at the OUSCI.
Congrats Ken on winning the points championship for 3000# and over, and thanks for taking the time to post. My thought is if there's isn't some sort of protouring or older car class the big hitters will either build late model purpose built cars to be competitive, or drop out completely. There will always be some protouring guys to compete, many who do it for fun or are just excited to be there. But there's also the competitive guys who won't spend the time and money if there's no chance of winning. Those are the guys we don't want to lose.

[James OLC]

I'll post more on this idea later (I'm getting on a plane and will have some time) but what if, rather than asking USCA (et al) to create a class for "us" - an idea which I strongly disagree with - if there really is a demand why not create our "own class" that can run within the USCA for an independent title?

:whistling:

[SSLance]

Well... At least the SCCA gave us a decent PAX for 2015.

http://home.comcast.net/~paxrtp/rtp2015.html

[Msracing89]

Well done Preston.

Let's remember this is also a television show, SEMA, and sponsor driven. I have always been a huge fan of what Jimi is/was doing with this series.....but let's be honest here, it goes away without the unique twist that PT/ G-machines bring to fold.

Hate to be harsh, but who is tuning in to see the 5th gen or mid 2000's Vette run around by itself? Some yes, but that is not, I believe, what the vision of this series was moving forward. USCA can still cater to the later model cars, but realize the focus and class rules should be tailored to cars that will keep this series alive. I think we all know which cars those are.

[dunnjun]

I think Sik68 had the right idea. Two classes, "early models" and "late models". That way if I want to chase Mark or Kyle around for the Early model win I can drive Blu, or if I want to chase Danny or Ken around for the Late model win, I can drive the C5. And if I really want to go for the overall, I can build a Ken Block AWD, and try to keep up with the RS Motors gang.:sarcasm_smiley: Seriously the AWD guys are going to be tough to beat! :Tomcat:

[GrabberGT]

I think Sik68 had the right idea. Two classes, "early models" and "late models". That way if I want to chase Mark or Kyle around for the Early model win I can drive Blu, or if I want to chase Danny or Ken around for the Late model win, I can drive the C5. And if I really want to go for the overall, I can build a Ken Block AWD, and try to keep up with the RS Motors gang.:sarcasm_smiley: Seriously the AWD guys are going to be tough to beat! :Tomcat:


LOL... I finally watched the Gymkhana video yesterday and wondered if Jimi offered him a Golden Ticket. I wonder how someone of that caliber could have placed. I think road course would have been his weak spot due to discipline and car setup.

[Ron in SoCal]

^ I think the driver rules woulda put him in exhibition class Chris (?), but yeah seeing that car run would be fun!

[GrabberGT]

^ I think the driver rules woulda put him in exhibition class Chris (?), but yeah seeing that car run would be fun!


I remember when Tanner Foust came out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRO5uUV7bps

[tazzz2_ca]

Just an observation here gang.... While I appreciate everyone like to compete the real thrust of this was setup to challenge your own time. If you want truly competitive racing you almost need to consider a highly regulated SCCA type format..

Now this said, can 75% of you honestly tell me who finished where and at what event??? I highly doubt it to honest. So here we are, a group of middle aged and graceful aged ;-) men and women that play this game for the most part... If we look at our lives, I willing to bet a good portion of them like to feel 21 at heart, but realize they aren't...

So what brings us together???
- We like to challenge ourselves in the cars in a safe environment, likely...
- I know see my car family at events knocks me over, what about you?
- If we each had the wonder car, I mean the perfect weapon,, are we going to on average beat the top drivers,,,,, I'd guess no for the most part.
- I don't know about you guys but I can say when someone, anyone shows up with a cool car that has been done right (your basic 69 by Mark, or Brian Finch that can both build it,, and drive it).... That's a benchmark moment that I really enjoy and almost always see a thread of few threads all about the car and how it ran...
- Being a foodie,,,, The party and telling the lies around the cars all day and evening rate extremely high for me,,, how about you? I'd almost go as far to say there are few that can name the winners of events all year but many that can tell about the lies, food and partys...

I guess the point I'm trying to bring up here is,,, there is always someone faster. While it's a gas to go fast and win, it may not be all it's cracked up to be... and certain drivers are going to dominate... I guess we have to decide why we're showing up on our own.

The different innovation going on and the limited rules provides the perfect breeding grounds for creativity.. I sure spend more time looking at the new muscle car builds,, and get more pleasure from seeing my friends at these events than any thoughts of "who's in first can bring"....

Bret Volkel put it best a few years ago,,,, """We are a Drinking club with a car problem""""... This is a social event,, not a race (at least for me),, the difference here is I get to toss the all to often penguin suite in my life and all socially correct BS for a Hell of a good day/s in a car around some of the best & most fun people I've ever hung out with... Just some food for thought on what brings you to an event,, to possibly consider as to what floats your boat within this hobby/lifestyle..

[Rod P]

I see that it was suggested Two classes, "early models" and "late models",,I think it should be 2 classes also but those should be a Electronics and Standards class

Electronics Class- to included ANY car with any Traction controls, ABS or Electronic Differentials

Standards Class- to included ANY car without Electronic Driver aids

that keeps the field even.....its simple if you want to add ABS or traction controls to your early 60's or 70's car...then you race against cars with the same drivers aids such as Corvettes, 5th Gen Camaros, all wheel drives and so on....and early Iron cars can have a more even group

[camcojb]

I see that it was suggested Two classes, "early models" and "late models",,I think it should be 2 classes also but those should be a Electronics and Standards class

Electronics Class- to included ANY car with any Traction controls, ABS or Electronic Differentials

Standards Class- to included ANY car without Electronic Driver aids

that keeps the field even.....its simple if you want to add ABS or traction controls to your early 60's or 70's car...then you race against cars with the same drivers aids such as Corvettes, 5th Gen Camaros, all wheel drives and so on....and early Iron cars can have a more even group
The only problem with that is an older 60's muscle car with ABS for example cannot compete equally with a late model Vette with equal power and driving skills. The later model car has a huge advantage in aero, center of gravity, and track width.

[camcojb]

I see that it was suggested Two classes, "early models" and "late models",,I think it should be 2 classes also but those should be a Electronics and Standards class

Electronics Class- to included ANY car with any Traction controls, ABS or Electronic Differentials

Standards Class- to included ANY car without Electronic Driver aids

that keeps the field even.....its simple if you want to add ABS or traction controls to your early 60's or 70's car...then you race against cars with the same drivers aids such as Corvettes, 5th Gen Camaros, all wheel drives and so on....and early Iron cars can have a more even group
The only problem with that is an older 60's muscle car with ABS for example cannot compete equally with a late model Vette with equal power and driving skills. The later model car has a huge advantage in aero, center of gravity, and track width. Having ABS does not make them equal.

[Rod P]

The only problem with that is an older 60's muscle car with ABS for example cannot compete equally with a late model Vette with equal power and driving skills. The later model car has a huge advantage in aero, center of gravity, and track width.

agreed, but this is in play to even the Vintage car field...I know of two cars at the last OUSCI event, Steilows 69 Camaro and Thurmans 64 vette both had ABS...I know that they cant compete with the modern cars...but those aids help them against classic muscle, all drivers aids drive together, or remove the aids completely and return to the standards class

[camcojb]

agreed, but this is in play to even the Vintage car field...I know of two cars at the last OUSCI event, Steilows 69 Camaro and Thurmans 64 vette both had ABS...I know that they cant compete with the modern cars...but those aids help them against classic muscle, all drivers aids drive together, or remove the aids completely and return to the standards class
I understand it gives them an advantage over the older cars, but it isn't anywhere near enough to make them compete evenly with late model cars. So I still don't think that's the way to make two classes.

[Vegas69]

With the variety of cars, it's going to be tough to legislate something that makes anyone happy. I still think going back to a heavier weighted design point system is the simplest way. It worked well in the past. If I recall, it bounced back and forth from old to new that way?

[Rod P]

I understand it gives them an advantage over the older cars, but it isn't anywhere near enough to make them compete evenly with late model cars. So I still don't think that's the way to make two classes.

it is going to very contested...talk about being between a rock and a hard place..glad I don't have to make the final decision :catfight:

[Stuart Adams]

I think the goal of the event needs to be addressed. What is the end result from Optima that is desired. The judging is dumb, that is why I asked. It must have something to do with the goal. You can't have stopwatch scoring and beauty pageant scoring combined, IMO. Obviously many factors come into play. I get all the emotional getting together stuff, car guy hanging out, different types of cars, different clicks within the groups, new vs old, etc, etc.

It is invitational and having a variety increases interest and more moola.
Personally I like seeing all the different cars at the event. I think we get too caught up in who wins. Doesn't mean diddly poo in the real world. You should judge yourself based on your car group. Just post the numbers of each car in their model group and also compared to all and call it a day. If its the fastest overall its the champ overall. Need to compare apples to apples. IMO. At least you could see and the spectators could see where you stand within your group. It would actually be more competitive IMO.

Also a concern of mine is the more often a car off the shelf wins or is much more competitive than the pro touring cars, it will start to erode the interest in choosing to modify old iron vs just buying off the lot. My own selfish way wants to see all the core pro touring businesses continue growing.

The gap that has been closed by the old iron with the new suspension upgrades, engines, etc has been remarkable. Think what the time difference would be from a bone stock 69 Camaro to Stielow's 69. The core pro touring guys should be damn proud of the before (stock) to todays version.

[Vegas69]

Most of the participants are competitors. Some want to see how they stack up, others are there for the win. A winner is important or many would never show up and put in the insane effort it takes to have a chance to win. The series needs the competitiveness to succeed.

[GregWeld]

I still say --- It's their swim party and their pool... you either want to be a part of that, or sit on the side lines and whine about "fairness" etc. The 100 car field this year kinda says plenty of people are happy to participate.

My guess is that 100% of them would come again next year if invited... and if they knew that they were going to go again - every one of them would be thrashing on their cars to "make them better"... regardless of whether or not they thought they had any chance to win anything.

[Matt@BOS]

I still say --- It's their swim party and their pool... you either want to be a part of that, or sit on the side lines and whine about "fairness" etc. The 100 car field this year kinda says plenty of people are happy to participate.

My guess is that 100% of them would come again next year if invited... and if they knew that they were going to go again - every one of them would be thrashing on their cars to "make them better"... regardless of whether or not they thought they had any chance to win anything.

Agreed! If I knew I was going in 2015 I'd be dropping more into the money pit to try and ease my fears of finishing last.

[DBasher]

Over 3k
Under 3k
AWD
And.....vintage

Draw the line in the 70's and call it a day. It's racing, kinda, and it'll never be "fair". There is no "fair" in racing, always someone faster, prettier, able to make more events and on and on. Whose winning? Anyone that shows up throughout the year and competes on these awesome tracks! Don't like the rules of a "hobby" event, than stay at home and read about how much fun people have had participating.

I think Vegas should stay with one winner takes all as the "Ultimate Street Car". You can win a class even if you don't win the overall.....who here is capable of winning the overall anyways? :lmao:

[Che70velle]

Over 3k
Under 3k
AWD
And.....vintage

Draw the line in the 70's and call it a day. It's racing, kinda, and it'll never be "fair". There is no "fair" in racing, always someone faster, prettier, able to make more events and on and on. Whose winning? Anyone that shows up throughout the year and competes on these awesome tracks! Don't like the rules of a "hobby" event, than stay at home and read about how much fun people have had participating.

I think Vegas should stay with one winner takes all as the "Ultimate Street Car". You can win a class even if you don't win the overall.....who here is capable of winning the overall anyways? :lmao:


It seems as though "fair" is a curse word on this thread. I've never raced in a class that wasn't against other equally prepared vehicles, from AMA quads, to Nascar late models. Yes, somebody will always be faster, and have more money to spend than you. That's just racing. Classes, just as you described, will create equality, and lead to a more, dare I say, fair race, um, time trial, which will bring more participants. It's no fun, for me at least, to watch a couple unequal cars, or trucks, or whatever's, run against each other.
So nobody here has ever won the overall?

[SSLance]

This issue is, it's very difficult to establish "fair" with such a wide variety of car types and allowed mods to said cars without ending up with 37 different classes. The problem with having so many different classes is you don't get enough participation in each class itself.

All some of us are asking for is just a simple one or two rules or classes to separate each end of the spectrum from the other in a somewhat fair way. Tire width, certain age group or even Rodney's electronic vs non-electronic division of cars are all good ideas, none of which exclude anyone but separate the group just enough so that the primitive cars don't get completely dominated by the late model cars.

[Sieg]

Agreed! If I knew I was going in 2015 I'd be dropping more into the money pit to try and ease my fears of being beat by Escobar's 4 cyl Pinto.
Fixed it for ya. :thumbsup: :)

[Matt@BOS]

Fixed it for ya. :thumbsup: :)

I'm not afraid of Joe. No need to worry about his Pinto. I'm pretty sure he already beat me in the standings this year.

[eric1967]

I think the goal of the event needs to be addressed. What is the end result from Optima that is desired. The judging is dumb, that is why I asked. It must have something to do with the goal. You can't have stopwatch scoring and beauty pageant scoring combined, IMO. Obviously many factors come into play. I get all the emotional getting together stuff, car guy hanging out, different types of cars, different clicks within the groups, new vs old, etc, etc.

It is invitational and having a variety increases interest and more moola.
Personally I like seeing all the different cars at the event. I think we get too caught up in who wins. Doesn't mean diddly poo in the real world. You should judge yourself based on your car group. Just post the numbers of each car in their model group and also compared to all and call it a day. If its the fastest overall its the champ overall. Need to compare apples to apples. IMO. At least you could see and the spectators could see where you stand within your group. It would actually be more competitive IMO.

Also a concern of mine is the more often a car off the shelf wins or is much more competitive than the pro touring cars, it will start to erode the interest in choosing to modify old iron vs just buying off the lot. My own selfish way wants to see all the core pro touring businesses continue growing.

The gap that has been closed by the old iron with the new suspension upgrades, engines, etc has been remarkable. Think what the time difference would be from a bone stock 69 Camaro to Stielow's 69. The core pro touring guys should be damn proud of the before (stock) to todays version.

Well spoken Stuart. I agree the judging is pretty stupid. When you use these cars the get rock chips, scratched & dirty. I could care less what somebody thinks of my car. If you like it that's great, if not that's fine also. I built it for me & my family.
Most people do not realize the talent of guys like Danny Popp. I have been doing autocross events for several years. Danny Popp could get in my car right now having never driven it & kick my but. He can do that with most of the cars at these events. Don't believe me let him drive your car.

[GrabberGT]

I think the goal of the event needs to be addressed. What is the end result from Optima that is desired. The judging is dumb, that is why I asked. It must have something to do with the goal. You can't have stopwatch scoring and beauty pageant scoring combined, IMO. Obviously many factors come into play. I get all the emotional getting together stuff, car guy hanging out, different types of cars, different clicks within the groups, new vs old, etc, etc.

It is invitational and having a variety increases interest and more moola.
Personally I like seeing all the different cars at the event. I think we get too caught up in who wins. Doesn't mean diddly poo in the real world. You should judge yourself based on your car group. Just post the numbers of each car in their model group and also compared to all and call it a day. If its the fastest overall its the champ overall. Need to compare apples to apples. IMO. At least you could see and the spectators could see where you stand within your group. It would actually be more competitive IMO.

Also a concern of mine is the more often a car off the shelf wins or is much more competitive than the pro touring cars, it will start to erode the interest in choosing to modify old iron vs just buying off the lot. My own selfish way wants to see all the core pro touring businesses continue growing.

The gap that has been closed by the old iron with the new suspension upgrades, engines, etc has been remarkable. Think what the time difference would be from a bone stock 69 Camaro to Stielow's 69. The core pro touring guys should be damn proud of the before (stock) to todays version.

I thought the judging aspect is there to help keep the Street Car in the event. Registered and insured as street legal is not enough. For many of us, the state only requires minimum safety inspection to pass as a street car. That is, parking brake, horn, signals, and lights. Anything else goes. Strip away all that excess (interior panels, windows, carpet, dash...) and you end up with street legal car shells jumping in the mix.

[Stuart Adams]

I thought the judging aspect is there to help keep the Street Car in the event. Registered and insured as street legal is not enough. For many of us, the state only requires minimum safety inspection to pass as a street car. That is, parking brake, horn, signals, and lights. Anything else goes. Strip away all that excess (interior panels, windows, carpet, dash...) and you end up with street legal car shells jumping in the mix.

Maybe I'm wrong then. The tech sheet sais if your car qualifies to even participate I thought. The judging was subjective I thought.