Nokones

Has there been any information given out in regards to the 2018 SCCA CAM events insofar as rule/class changes and event dates, etc.? Just curious.

jw1

Haven't see anything yet. When I emailed Raleigh last month to see about including the C7s he said that he was shooting to have the 2018 rules ready by the end of October.

Nokones

I'm hoping that they leave the rules alone. There was some consideration for making a CAM class for the C3s and older Corvettes and combine the lightweight cars into a new class. I was curious if that was still being considered.

eric1855

I've heard, unofficially, to not expect many if any rule changes, especially for CAM-S. I have not seen anything official yet.

I got an early look at a draft National schedule but the only CAM event I saw on it was Peru on the same weekend as usual in August. I don't think many of the dates are locked down yet, the list I saw was still missing a ton of events.

Nokones

Thanks Eric.

l98tpi

The Cam class began with the slogan "Big Power, Big Tires, Few Rules". Now there seems to be more rules introduced or discussion about what design is correct with certain add ons. There have been people running other sanction bodies that are still hesitant to run SCCA Events and Cam Events because they feel the SCCA is overbearing with rules and specifics.

My opinion is there need to be only be a division of different Cam classes based upon YR, Make, Model and the rules for each class have a minimum weight and tire tread wear rating and that's it. Those are two of the main factors of vehicle performance.

MatthewMiller

Since the topic has been started here, I'll weigh in on my thoughts. Those of you who've been to either the old or new CAM FB page have already seen my thoughts. First, I too understand that there are likely to be no rule changes to CAM-S for 2018, based on a town-hall meeting that was had. My gripes with the class rules are very few, but they are important:

1. There should be one minimum weight for all cars in the class, rather than a penalty for Corvettes and Vipers as there is today. And the weight should be one that real street-driven cars can reasonably meet - 3000lbs would be reasonable, 2900lb would probably be at least acceptable. The notion of a 2450lb minimum for all other cars is based on some fantasy that C4-C7s have magical properties that allow them to be faster than any other car...which is of course ridiculous. Note that this actually simplifies the rules, rather than making them more complicated!
2. Kit cars and purpose-built tube frame race cars with classic-car bodies bolted on are not in the spirit of the class, and are not "classic American muscle cars" at all. Ban them.
3. Sports cars that were built in foreign countries (especially teeny 4-cylinder 50hp cars, like an A/C Ace), then imported and converted to American V8 power by a small shop (rather than a "Big Three" company) are also not "classic American muscle cars. They aren't even production cars at all. Ban them. Yes, I'm talking about Cobras.

The class should be limited to street-drivable, American production cars still using their original frame/chassis, and all conforming to a single reasonable minimum weight. The fact that anyone can build a tube frame race car and drop a fiberglass Cobra body on it and run at 2450lbs (with plenty of rearward bias!) and 90" wheelbase means that this is the one way to have a big advantage. Or check out a JBL Cobra kit for an example of a semi-monocoque race chassis with rocker-arm suspension and a Cobra body - fully legal for CAM.

jw1

Agreed on all points.

Maxharvard

Please define, "real street-driven cars".

I only say that because that could be a VERY slippery slope into a million different areas and interpretations.

MatthewMiller

That's a long topic unto itself! And you're right, it's going to be very hard to define tightly in a set of written rules. I don't think the ability to obtain a safety sticker is a good benchmark, because basically anything with an old car body bolted to it can pass if it has a horn and a few lights. I'd base it on, first, the retention of the original frame/unibody, and next on the retention or upgrading of all stock safety items and the retention of the same number of original passenger seats (or front seats, if the rule is apply uniformly to all three CAM classes). We're already on a terribly slippery slope in CAM with the rule that requires an interior but doesn't really define what "interior" is.

OTOH, you don't really have to define what a "real street-driven car" is in the rule set, since I'm only using that phrase to set a reasonable and uniform minimum weight. Once a proper minimum weight is set, we can stop trying to figure out what "real street car" is. For example, I think it's reasonable to say that any C4-C6 comes from the factory at between 3000-3300lb (except maybe the ZR1s). I think Vipers are maybe 3400lbs. From there, it's reasonable to say that one could remove 200-300lbs (a/c, lighter seats, lighter wheels, etc) and still retain some measure of street usefulness. So 3000lbs seems like a number that isn't so low that people will be encouraged to strip good streetable cars to unstreetable status, and then staple some fabric onto metal and call it an "interior." And let's face it, the vast, vast majority of entries in all CAM classes are people who like to modify street cars, still drive them on the street. That is, they have modified street cars rather than purpose-built race cars decorated to sort of resemble street cars. Establish a reasonable minimum weight, and most of the incentive to build the latter goes away. So "real street-driven cars" doesn't have to appear in the rules anywhere.

The other part of the equation that must be included with the minimum weight, though, is the part about production cars and retaining their original frame/unibody. The wording I suggested to Raleigh was the following:If you combine that with the 3000lb minimum weight, then you eliminate kit cars and silhouette cars (tube frames with bodies bolted on), and you remove most of the incentives to make a production car totally unstreetable. Actually, I've suggested that there should be a totally separate class for kit cars and silhouette cars. There are a lot of kit cars out there that should have a good class to autocross in. OTOH, I don't think we need another CAM class for older Corvettes, because really the rules would allow all kinds of mods to suspension design/geometry of the C1-3s.

l98tpi

I understand where Matt is coming from and agree to some of his points. Per discussions I’ve been in, CAM is a fun class but starting to get too specific with rules. If some one runs GoodGuys, Optima, NASA, etc and they run splitters or wings they can’t compete due to current rules or they have to take items off the car. And here we go with specifics and trying to make rules to satisfy complaints. This is why I feel and some others that a good approach would be a weight limit and treadwear rating. Everything else open.

Wanna run a tube Frame Maverick with carbon fiber body and three wings, 1200hp, and full undertray; bring it out and have fun as long as it meets minimum weight and treadwear tires.

eric1855

I think the ideal solution would be find the laxest of the rule sets and go with that.

If that's Optima then copy their rules. Set them so if you build a car that can compete in CAM it can compete in all others with no changes.

The other thing I "heard" is the folks behind CAM have shifted focus now to a CAM rule like variant for imports, so again wouldn't expect many changes

Fast Cars & Horses

Watching this. We are in CAM-S with a C6Z and doing some mods over the winter for 2018 season. It's a fun class and I agree the spirit of the class should be maintained. I agree that a weight limit and tires are the answer.

Maxharvard

Sorry, I can't disagree enough here.

Having competed in a few OUSCI OPTIMA events, its really starting to get out of hand. "Street Car" is more like how much money you can spend to have someone build you a race car, or how much sponsorship $$ can you get. Have you seen some of these cars? For real. It's insane and the 'average joe' cannot even remotely compete.

That's the problem with anything good... It immediately gets crowded out by big bucks.

mattastick

This. If you're getting beat, shut up and drive... Eric's car the last 2 years has shown it's driver, not car, that wins the fake jackets in September.

eric1855

Uhh...that is every class in every motorsports ever.

Don't want to feel like you need to spend money you should race Street class.

You can't have an open ruleset, then limit how much money someone is going to spend to get there. Thems the breaks.

Thing is you don't NEED to spend that money. Danny doesn't win Optima because he gets free stuff, quite the opposite really. He'd win in anyones car. My car has won CAMS the last 2 years because I have some fast driving friends whos cars seem to always break before Nats, and all in I have less money in my car than it'd cost to buy a used C6Z.


Back on topic though, if its all just tires and min weights, why do we need the split between CAMC and CAMS?

l98tpi

l98tpi

I think the split is for year and model. It’s harder to get a Camaro or Mustang down to the weight of a Corvette or Cobra. And to minimize the cost as well. It would take some alteration to get a Camaro or Mustang Suspension to meet the geometry of the Corvette. Not saying it cannot be done, but it would take money and fabrication to do it. I’ve seen some nice handling Mustangs and Camaros and Chevelles and Nova’s, but there is some money spent to make those cars handle like they do.

chetly

Yet a Corvette won Nationals... I don't see why your so against Cobras in CAM-S. Are you constantly getting beat by one locally or something? Competition breeds competition. Unless you have a fully prepared Corvette right at the limit of weight and everything you can do and are still getting beat, your argument is invalid.

I personally cant wait till Bruce and Scott bring out the Cobra to see where I stack up against it now. I know ive gotten a lot faster since it was last out and they have been concentrating on the Porsche.

MatthewMiller

So just to make sure we're all on the same page, there are weight limits in CAM-S right now. The problem I have with them is that they are intentionally used to penalize Corvettes and Vipers. Any car in the class can weigh as little as 2450lbs...EXCEPT C4-C6s and Vipers, which have to weigh 2900lbs. My proposal is that there should be a single minimum weight for cars, and it should be a weight that actual modified production Corvettes and Vipers can reasonably achieve while still remaining realistic street cars. Like I said, I believe 3000lb is that weight. Any car lighter than that could ballast up to that weight easily, and still have an advantage by virtue of being able to locate the ballast wherever desired (presumably lower and slightly ahead of rear axle line).

Well, first let's be clear: the CAM Invitational had 21 entries and it is more or less the "nationals" for CAM competition. The actual Nationals CAM-S class had only 14 entries. At the Invitational, one two-driver FFR Cobra showed up and was able to complete its runs, and it won. The only other Cobra DNS'd almost all its runs and never even got a chance to compete. 15 Corvettes, 1 Solstice, and the IH Scout all got beaten by one kit car Cobra. At the actual Nationals, there were three total Cobra entries (two cars, one of them two-driver again), and 11 Corvettes. One Corvette won the event, and the faster Cobra got second by only 0.2s. If a 2450lb, 90in-wheelbase kit car really wasn't any faster than a 2900lb Corvette, then statistically speaking we should not see the only reliable and semi-sorted kit car at the top of every event it enters.

I am against Cobra being in CAM-S for several reasons:

• First, kit cars and tube-frame silhouette cars shouldn't be allowed in any CAM class, regardless of what original car they are trying to emulate. An FFR Cobra is not a "classic American muscle car" any more than a Bricklin, Locost 7, GTM, or any other kit car is. Putting a V8 in a kit car doesn't make it classic or a muscle car.
• Second, a Cobra was never a production car and it wasn't an American car, ever. They were always British sports cars that came with little 4-cylinder engines (A/C Ace), then imported and extensively modified by a sole proprietorship (Shelby). They may be classic, but they were never American. If they are CAM legal, then a Monster Miata should also be legal, because it's exactly the same thing. So should the Sunbeam Tiger, which Shelby also played a major part in developing.
• Finally, these cars have incredibly short wheelbases and rearward weight biases. They are smaller than Miatas, and typically have a 45/55 weight distribution. And as per above, they get to race 450lb lighter than the cars that actually make this class viable. While it is of course true that driving talent matters, so does physics. It is unquestionable that a much smaller, lighter rwd with a better weight distribution has a massive advantage. The point is, you simply don't have to be as good a driver to win in a sorted kit Cobra as you would in a production-based Corvette. I am well acquainted with Danny Popp's skill - he's driven my car, and I have little doubt he can beat the best Cobra currently in the class in his C5. But that's not the relevant data point. What's important is that if you give him a few runs in the Cobra, he'll be a lot faster in it than in his C5, every time, without fail.

Your point about "unless you have a fully prepared Corvette right at the limit of weight and everything" is a non-starter as an example. Why? Because the current rules of CAM-S mean that any car built to the limit starts as a purpose-built tube frame or monocoque race chassis, and then you just drop a fiberglass shell onto it and some form of vestigial interior. And nobody in his right mind would go to all that trouble and then drop a C4/5/6 body onto it when doing so would incur a 450lb weight penalty. And really, no sane person would use any Corvette or Viper body for that project when doing so incurs a 6-16" wheelbase penalty. The only rational decision at that point would be to bolt on a Cobra body so the purpose-built race car could weigh 2450lb and have a 90" wheelbase. Any other decision would literally be stupid, because anybody that understands physics understands the advantages the Cobra body gives under the current rules. IOW, there really is no such thing as a "fully prepared Corvette right at the limit of weight and everything."

But in light of the above, let me ask a question. We currently have a class that allows one to build a dedicated race car chassis from scratch that has nothing to do with any production car, and then one can choose whatever fake fiberglass body he wants to put on it to conform with or avoid whatever rules penalties he desires. That's the current reality for CAM-S - it's inarguable fact. When you read that italicized sentence out loud, does that sound remotely like a class for modified classic American muscle cars?

Late-model Corvettes are the only reason this class even exists and is healthy. Without them, there is no CAM-S. It would be a lot more honest for the leader(s) to say "All C4+ Corvettes are not allowed in CAM-S." Of course, then the class would cease to exist. OTOH, the class can most certainly exist without kit cars and original A/C Cobras. It makes no sense to penalize the staple car of a class, and you have to ask yourself exactly what the agenda is behind that idea.