SCCA CAM-C Thread

[NightmareMoon]

I tried s couple days of events at Milwaukee’s new lot. A fun TnT day and a disappinting autox event the next day.

The autox day with Vitours I was praying for not rain. Well we got lucky and dodged rain in my heats, but it was too cool and 8mo old vitours had a tough time sticking on the broken up surface and 49 degree temps.

Best run was a hot tire rerun and good for 2nd in class, but only 20th in PAX. Super tight course design was not half as good (IMHO) as the TnT on the previous day. 43 seconds on a small lot was trying to get too much time on too litle lot but in the end it was fun regardless and the club was full of friendly people.

That said, i drove home an hour with a bad front balljoint vibrating, probably due to the awful lot conditions. Thats the 2nd or 3rd Steeda extended balljoint control arm that’s failed on me. The roads up here arent great and miles on the street and high track spring rates cant be helping but I’m either going back to stock control arms or keeping spares on hand, because a balljoint failure 3 days before leaving for Spring Nats is a real buzz kill, and the steeda part is out of stock for weeks still so I cant even pay to overnight one

I found some potential codrives in other classes for the spring nats pro and tour, so I’ll drive out and have fun with cars for the week anyway, but I’m missing doing my thing in my own car.

Slotted rotors have been due for a replacement for a while and I did a double take the other day because they are so worn they arent slotted anymore, and those are on backorder too, so probably for the best that I dont push my luck. (technically still a fraction of a mm above min thickness)

You might see me in a CAMC car for the pro but I’d be batting for the other team (Chevy) if that opportunity works out.

Sponsored

 

[Dana Pants]

Just don’t extend the ball joints. Problem solved. .

 

[mavisky]

With a failure rate like that I'd be back to the stock balljoints and whatever compromises they're creating.

 

[Dallas J]

Extended ball joints are always sketchy, you really cant go a lot longer than OEM without adding flex or risk into the system.

On our earliest Evo control arms we used 4140 normalized for the +10mm ball joints and had a couple cases of them bending slightly when hitting hard curbs on track. 4140 RC32 fixed that and so far (100s later) we've not had one bend. But to go even 5mm longer we'd have to switch to heat treated 4340.

I dont know what Steeda uses, have they ever indicated?

 

[NightmareMoon]

Extended ball joints are always sketchy, you really cant go a lot longer than OEM without adding flex or risk into the system.

On our earliest Evo control arms we used 4140 normalized for the +10mm ball joints and had a couple cases of them bending slightly when hitting hard curbs on track. 4140 RC32 fixed that and so far (100s later) we've not had one bend. But to go even 5mm longer we'd have to switch to heat treated 4340.

I dont know what Steeda uses, have they ever indicated?

No but I havent asked. To be fair it didnt bend but the balljoint did get clunky and move around.

I have learned I’m not the first to give up on them due to the failure rate.

Probably should switch the knuckles instead of the balljoints if you want the geometry I guess.

 

[Dallas J]

FYI, none of the knuckles change geometry. Check my tech post about it.

 

[NightmareMoon]

Pro didnt go my way. ZL1 1LE was fun and accelerates, but I had a tough time getting the slaloms right. Both me and the owner didnt have the time to do much better than final trophy spots. pro PAX seems to punish CAMC, but sure could have definitely driven better.

ZL1 was quick, put power down predictably well, and smooth to drive.

 

[Dallas J]

pro PAX seems to punish CAMC

Its not that the PAX is hard, its that the bar is high. PAX is based on existing performance over multiple events, and only looking at the top 5% IIRC. Schulz is basically the benchmark at this point, though Wong is getting up there too. Both are absolutely top tier drivers but Schulz's build is going to be a tough build to beat. I bet its near min weight at this point with "sufficient" power, maximal tire, and years of development. And a rockstar driver...

Bolt-ons isnt going to do it nationally. Or for PAX at regional national events. Not that I know your full build, but Id guess theirs lots of development left.

 

[WItoTX]

Its not that the PAX is hard, its that the bar is high. PAX is based on existing performance over multiple events, and only looking at the top 5% IIRC. Schulz is basically the benchmark at this point, though Wong is getting up there too. Both are absolutely top tier drivers but Schulz's build is going to be a tough build to beat. I bet its near min weight at this point with "sufficient" power, maximal tire, and years of development. And a rockstar driver...

Bolt-ons isnt going to do it nationally. Or for PAX at regional national events. Not that I know your full build, but Id guess theirs lots of development left.

The problem with CAM is what makes it so much fun IMO. Like zero rules, just horsepower and aero. So basically unless you have massively deep pockets (not only for the car, but for seat time and the associated travel), you're really going to struggle beyond regional events.

Again, just my opinion, and one reason, among many, why I've slowly migrated from AutoX to track time personally.

 

[NightmareMoon]

Its not that the PAX is hard, its that the bar is high. PAX is based on existing performance over multiple events, and only looking at the top 5% IIRC. Schulz is basically the benchmark at this point, though Wong is getting up there too. Both are absolutely top tier drivers but Schulz's build is going to be a tough build to beat. I bet its near min weight at this point with "sufficient" power, maximal tire, and years of development. And a rockstar driver...

Bolt-ons isnt going to do it nationally. Or for PAX at regional national events. Not that I know your full build, but Id guess theirs lots of development left.

Well I'd argue the PAX isn't balanced in ProSolo., and this is The M6G CAMC thread, so can we not all agree that PAX is unfair to us, at all times, no matter what the actual value is? j/k of course.

My build is not maximum effort...while it won CAMC nats in '22 and I've made some significant upgrades since then, its still too heavy in the current trim. 300lbs isn't just a racing seat and a steering wheel. If I could make one change to the CAMC rules, it would be the minimum weight, which IIRC is only that low to allow some 4-banger camaro builds, and lets be honest, nobody needs 4 cylinder motors in CAMC.

 

[RobZ71LM7]

I autocrossed in the early 2000’s in a 4th gen F-body setup by Strano. I mostly ran ESP. I then left that world for a long time until I bought my Mach 1. All the CAMC cars I’ve seen seem very underbuilt and often have trouble besting FS. It’s different now with street tires in all the classes and seeing people run FS or CAMC.

I really think a street tire class with ESP rules would be fun and much more budget friendly and easier to build a max effort car.

It seems you’re left with a choice of stock or a class that’s wide open. Reminds me of when I started and subframe connectors bumped an otherwise stock pony car into SM where it had no chance.

One thing is for the sure the stock classes make the most sense if you want to be competitive. I’ve since given up autocross again and gone to track days.

 

[kz]

Its not that the PAX is hard, its that the bar is high. PAX is based on existing performance over multiple events, and only looking at the top 5% IIRC.

I am not certain PSI is based on existing performance over multiple events, it more looks like an arbitrary number pulled out of someone's ass - especially looking at C / S / T differences between PAX (which may be imperfect but at least there's a known process and at the end is largely irrelevant) vs. PSI which is very much relevant since CAM in Pro is an index class and you have to raw time CAM-T cars that are much lighter and have just as much (or more) power as CAM-C cars and often use some sort of Corvette subframe and suspension.

Pax PSI
CAM-T 0.819 0.819
CAM-C 0.828 0.838
CAM-S 0.847 0.851

I'd love to know how someone thinks CAM-C launches that much better that it justifies 0.01 higher index for a 30 second course. It's not like 60ft times are some sort of mystery.

 

[Dana Pants]

In CAM we die with honour. Rick Ruth does not decide our destiny. I’d rather lose sideways with 460 hp than win in a Miata.

 

[WItoTX]

In CAM we die with honour. Rick Ruth does not decide our destiny. I’d rather lose sideways with 460 hp than win in a Miata.

I think Jesus said that. It's definitely in the Bible somewhere....

 

[Dallas J]

...so can we not all agree that PAX is unfair to us, at all times, no matter what the actual value is? j/k of course.

If we aren't complaining about PAX being unfair, are we even autocrossing?!

I am not certain PSI is based on existing performance over multiple events, it more looks like an arbitrary number pulled out of someone's ass - especially looking at C / S / T differences between PAX (which may be imperfect but at least there's a known process and at the end is largely irrelevant) vs. PSI which is very much relevant since CAM in Pro is an index class and you have to raw time CAM-T cars that are much lighter and have just as much (or more) power as CAM-C cars and often use some sort of Corvette subframe and suspension.

Pax PSI
CAM-T 0.819 0.819
CAM-C 0.828 0.838
CAM-S 0.847 0.851

I'd love to know how someone thinks CAM-C launches that much better that it justifies 0.01 higher index for a 30 second course. It's not like 60ft times are some sort of mystery.

Yeah, PSI is controlled by SCCA but is arbitrarily adjusted after RR makes his adjustments. So its definitely biased by PAX.

The CAM-T index should certainly be harder than CAM-C if two cars were equally prepped. "Equally prepped" would be much harder in CAM-T but difficulty of prep is irrelevant in terms of PAX.

I could imagine a Fox chassis with a level of build that should crush anything possible in CAM-C due to foot print and weight. Really no reason for that 0.020s other than only a few folks have serious builds.

Sponsored