SCCA CAM-C Thread

[TeeLew]

I think that cars will get barely faster and only on the fastest courses. By average they'll be just as slow/fast. All those wings will need some front aero after all. I think that weight reduction makes more sense if one was to prioritize than adding aero...

You're probably right, but what good does either really do the class? If we're doing it right, then we're getting the car as light as you can and ballasting up to minimum or something stupid like that (BTW, ballast placement can be a big deal) along with wings and splitters and all that. Maybe that's the direction that the people who run CAM want?

I always felt CAM (particularly C) was either a daily or weekend driven car that was basically whatever you wanted in terms of suspension or engine. It was always meant to have a finished interior and meant to be the type of car driven to the event. I think that's a great way to structure the class and I hope they don't get away from that.

Most of my recommendations would slow the cars. Make minimum weight 3600#. Who is that going to hurt? Very few and it would reduce the advantage of a big spending race to make everything light. If you wanted to go crazy, you'd still get the advantage of ballast placement, but you wouldn't have 500 pound weight difference between cars. We might even trick a couple Challengers or similar to show up.

Make the tires harder. 200 TW tires aren't really 200 TW. They're treaded qualifying tires with a wink and a nod. They're way too much of a concern as to what tire you have and its life. Give us something that's harder (at least a legit 300 TW) and as insensitive to heat cycles as we can find. It will still be faster than whatever we had 30 years ago.

If you wanted to get tricky, you'd do a tire size to weight sliding scale, but that's probably too tricky. At the end of the day, I think we often get caught in the trap of thinking we have to go faster to have more fun, and that's just not the case.

Sponsored

 

[kz]

I completely agree with all above. That was the intent of the CAM originally - bring in daily driven cars with typical mods that put them in higher prep classes. Now all this has migrated to rules commonality with time trials and who knows what else.

I even suggested raising weight to Raleigh two or so years back - he pointed at his fellow Indy region competitor with 2.0 Camaro saying it would make it illegal without ballast. That competitor has since bought Miata I think (nice elderly gentleman that wasn't super hardcore about it).

 

[TeeLew]

I even suggested raising weight to Raleigh two or so years back - he pointed at his fellow Indy region competitor with 2.0 Camaro saying it would make it illegal without ballast. That competitor has since bought Miata I think (nice elderly gentleman that wasn't super hardcore about it).

Let's be fair. My weight idea hurts ME! I have a light car and an advantage in that regard. Who gives a shit if one guy has to put weight in a car if it brings the other 500 closer together?

This is catering to the extreme minority.

 

[NightmareMoon]

100% agreed on the weight, and I wrote that to SCCA. I think the 3300lbs plus 180lb driver is for the 4-banger camaros (they used to make) which were like 3300lbs stock. I'm much rather see somebody have to find a place to stash 100lbs in the very lightest CAMC cars, even if its a showroom stock one, versus make the rest of us find an impossible way to get a V8 down to 3300 by stripping out all the stuff that makes it daily drivable. Personally I can't see how to get there without going to empty carbon shells for doors, and that can't be safe on the road. Lightest CAMC cars I'm seeing these days are like 35XX. Even the 4 cylinder ones. Why make a min weight that NOBODY is racing at?

If they're trying to equalize the 4cylinder turbo cars against the V8s, then do some kind of weight penalty arrangement, so they can be lighter and we have a higher min weight.

I'm not liking the idea of running different tires than the rest of the autox field. With the usual 200TW tires that everyone else runs, we can at least HAVE a comparable PAX and play those games locally. Put us on 300tw tires and forget it. Now I have a fast car with a wing and aero, but no grip? Thank you not. If you don't like tire X or tire Y, then change the allowed tires for Solo as a whole. Really with the wings and aero allowed, we should all be on Hoosiers It only makes sense.

 

[TeeLew]

Really with the wings and aero allowed, we should all be on Hoosiers It only makes sense.

Is there any functional difference between the life of an A052 and an A7?

 

[TeeLew]

Santa brought a K-member!

 

[WItoTX]

I swore the new rules were posted on this thread, but I can't find them. And my quick Google search has provided nothing. Can someone share the updated CAM rules?

 

[mavisky]

See attached.

 

[mavisky]

Chassis mount splitter design under way for the new year. Using cheap birch plywood for design and mock up purposes. Now to figure out some good chassis mounting solutions. I've seen everything the market has to offer from Verus to AJ Hartman down to LiquiVinyl and even non Mustang specific solution like Professional Awesome. Really wishing 9 lives offered a splitter for our cars like they do so many others. Looking at doing my own thing now because why do it the easy way right?

 

[WItoTX]

See attached.

Thanks! Trying to get a little last minute vacation studying and planning done before real life starts on Wednesday.

 

[NightmareMoon]

why do it the easy way right?

I've made two now. Its a lot of work, but its a fun challenge. Used the professional awesome mounts as part of the solution. Used normal plywood the first time, and marine grade plywood the second time. The marine grade stuff is really nice. Very flat, is holding up well so far.

 

[mavisky]

I've made two now. Its a lot of work, but its a fun challenge. Used the professional awesome mounts as part of the solution. Used normal plywood the first time, and marine grade plywood the second time. The marine grade stuff is really nice. Very flat, is holding up well so far.

I was looking at them too, but based on the orientation of their attachment and the oil cooler on the GT350, I think it directly interferes with the oil cooler lines so likely won't be able to use that mounting solution on the driver's side without a lot of customization.

 

[WItoTX]

Question not necessarily 100% CAMC related, but if any group has experience with this, it's this group. I'm debating pulling wheel well liners. I know this has been done before, and it looks like it could save about 12-16 lbs. My question is this radiator in the front driver's side wheel well. Is there any concern of rocks damaging it? Anyone has that issue?

 

[TeeLew]

100% you need to protect it. Ideally, ducting would put the actual cooling air flow into a low pressure area. Directly in front of tires we often find relative high pressure, so from a cooling standpoint, the present arrangement is probably not optimum.

 

[mavisky]

I would look elsewhere to shave weight. Don't want to risk damaging the engine oil cooler pictured there.

Sponsored