Nokones

I'm hearing rumors that the subject was discussed and the likely hood that the C4s will be moved from CAM-S to CAM-T with a weight penaly. Is this really going to happen or is it just bunk?

chetly

I hope it doesn't happen. That would kill CAM-T. I wasn't there but I weighed in on FB. My opinion is the C1-C4 should stay in CAM-S with a weight restructuring for the Cobra up to 2700lbs and Corvettes down to the same. C5-C7 should be moved to a CAM-X where the weight would stay the same at 2900 but they'd allow front aero up to 4" from factory body line and keep the 10" spoiler in the rear.

Nokones

I hope that they don't move us to CAM-T. That wouldn't be fair to the CAM-T drivers. Although, I would enjoy kicking "Ford Boy's" butt but, I wouldn't want to see the CAM-T class guys go away. Also, I went through great strides, and money, to put my C4 on a strict diet, I really don't want to put 200-300 pounds back in my car at this point.

If they do allow the C4s to run in CAM-T with a weight penalty, I hope that they will allow the C4s to continue to tun in CAM-S with the rule set as this year.

BrianCunningham

Wonder what the weight would be
I'm at 3442

Nokones

With you in the car?

Mechengineer

I don't think that would be a good idea at all. C1-C3 could be acceptable to move to CAM-T as they are not competitive at all even with extremely good drivers. IMO, this would entice C1-C3 cars to come out more to SCCA events. But C4s need to stay in CAM-S.

MatthewMiller

Would this entail also moving the C1-3 to T? I don't see how any of this would really work. The thing about the CAM rules as they stand is that it doesn't matter what year your car is: you can get/build a bespoke tube-frame chassis just for racing and put whatever body and VIN tag you want on it, and it's legal (as long as the wheelbase is the same as stock). In S you can also have all the ABS/TC and other electronic driver aids you want. So why bother sorting them out by year? If the rules required a stock frame or stock suspension geometry, then it would matter. OTOH, if everyone stick with production-based frames, then the C4 will have an easy advantage in T. Look what my friend, Chris Ramey, accomplished in Optima's GTV class with his C4. He's a great driver too - it isn't all just car, but still, he decimated the competition in all the timed events.

I think I'm with Kenny: sounds like a bad idea because it risks killing T. If they'd give S a reasonable minimum weight (2900-3000lbs) and make every type of car compete at that weight, it would solve 90% of the issues with the class.

Mechengineer

C1-C3 to T, yes. I have raced with very well prepped C3 cars with very good drivers and there running competitive raw times to other CAM-T cars. And on our normal 60ish second course, they were ~2s off of C5 cars like mine with an okish driver.

I kind of agree with you but then I don't. I completely agree that IF people were to build tube frame cars and slap a body on it, it wouldn't matter the year restrictions or body style. BUT, nobody is really doing that (yet atleast). And if the time comes to were people are building full on race cars to compete in CAM, then sure, there could then be some restructure to the rule set to compensate for that. People are currently buying mostly off the shelf suspension parts and adding some aero.

I also kind of agree with the weight. I for one have cut weight out of my car and plan on cutting more this winter with the intention of being right at 2900 lbs but, CAM-S was won by a 3500 lb C7 GS this year at nationals...

smitty2919

Good thing about adding weight is you can put it where is helps.

BrianCunningham

nope

Blower, coolers, 6pt add weight.

Still street legal

Rexracer77

Has anyone built a tube frame race car and draped a body over it and dominated any CAM class at nationals yet? No? OK so lets stop talking about that situation.

Now lets look at how many C4s ran at nationals in ANY class.
CAM-S - 35th - 68 Kent Radford 1995 Chevrolet Corvette, Last place

Hmm I see 1.... 1 car out of 1269 cars that ran.

How did this C4 do out of those 1269 cars? 1234....

Now if this C4 had been in CAM-T, how would he have done? 16th of 18 cars.
That doesn't sound like Dominance to me.

Overall? with a CAM-T PAX, 1213th place..

I am not arguing that this C4 is the top C4 in the country, but making the point that nobody else bothered showing up with a C4 because they are completely out-gunned in CAM-S. And cant run in BS as you cant get stock bushings. Either way, would have been dominated by Tesla 3 and GT350s

Now lets look at the rules for CAM-T.
CAM T: In this case, the “T” stands for Traditional, and this class is for car and truck body styles originating from 1954-89. (Minimum weight w/o driver is 3000 lbs.)

Since the C4 originated in 84, seems like it fits perfectly into CAM-T to me. Minimum weight is up there also, keeping people from doing some crazy Tube frame 2200lbs builds.

So by doing this move to CAM-T, all I see is that the C4 has a place where it can compete against other vehicles of its age. There is always going to be some guy putting way more money/development into a car that will have a better chance of winning. The amount of people to spend 20-30k beyond the purchase price of the car, to build up a very competitive car, isn't going to waste it on a C4. Look at C4 values. If I dump 30k into a 68 Camaro, I can get a good amount of that back. I do the same thing with a C4, its all lost.

Now a more personal comparison. I run all the events with James Paulson, who took 2nd in CAM-C this year. So I can track my performance directly to his performance. I obviously was well behind him at every event in Raw time, apply the PAX from S to C, and he is even further ahead. Taking all my times and applying the CAM-T Pax, the gap closes, but he still beats me at every event. Instead of 3-4 seconds behind, its down to 2-3 seconds behind. He should beat me, he is a better driver in a better prepared car. The point is that the switch from S to T doesn't make the C4 dominate. Using this data, I am able to estimate how I would have done at Nationals, CAM-S I would have been 23rd of 24 (ahead of only the other C4), in CAM T I would have been 13th of 18. Dominance?

The biggest argument I have seen so far, this move would push everyone out of T. I completely disagree. The guys running T are not guys building a car to win a national title, there is no national title. The guys running CAM-T are ones that have an old car they want to have fun with and race. How does that description not fit all of us C4 guys?

The only thing that would make me feel otherwise is if they are doing something like a CAM-X to push all the newer cars into. All the talk on the Camaro forums is they are all moving to CAM, as FS is now a BMW class. A lot of the guys in C7s are moving to CAM as well.

If this change doesn't happen, I am selling the C4. I love my C4, its fun, looks great, etc, but getting beat in PAX to a 2019 Camaro ZR1 1LE, that you out RAW time is not fun. Its bringing a Knife to a Bazooka fight.

smitty2919

Yes....Mike DuSold.

Mechengineer

Mike Dusolds car would also be classified as CAM-S with it weighing 2800ish pounds...

Rexracer77

And how did he finish at Nationals? Oh, he didn't go, not this year, not 2018, not 2017.

Looks like an Optima car, and also proves my point. If someone is going to build an amazing tube frame car, its not going to be a C4.

smitty2919

He asked has anyone built a tube frame and ran CAM...lol

smitty2919

Seems like a touchy subject for you fella...

Rexracer77

Oh how I love internet forums and the trolls that come with them. Instead of discussing the subject with logic, they find some tiny-unimportant detail and hammer on that.

The original argument "The thing about the CAM rules as they stand is that it doesn't matter what year your car is: you can get/build a bespoke tube-frame chassis just for racing and put whatever body and VIN tag you want on it, and it's legal"
So while I agreed that could happen, and as pointed out 1 guy has done, these builds are not effecting Nationals Results.

Since people are stuck on this, I will edit my statement to be clearer to my message.

smitty2919

Building a C4 to be competitive in CAM S (money invested aside), then moving that same car to CAM T I bet would fair VERY well for itself.

Top 5 2019 CAM T
68 Cmaaro
85 Camaro
85 Camaro
90 Mustang
90 Mustang

The C4 in CAM S clicked off a 75 sec time...1st in CAM S was a 65.8 sec and first n CAM T was a 66.8 sec. I think this specific C4 at nationals may be a bad example? I don't know the car or the driver.

Rexracer77

Exactly my point, a well built C4 would do just fine, but wouldn't automatically dominate CAM-T. The C4 as a CAM-S car, anything under a tube frame $50-$100k build doesn't have a snow ***** chance. And as results show, CAM-T isnt far behind S, so no instant win.

And my second point, who has built a nationally competitive CAM-S C4? Since none showed up I will guess none? Why? Because it would cost a ton of $ to do it, and why would someone put that much into a C4? The move would just give us with C4s a place to run against similarly aged cars.

RX7 KLR

Seems like a reach to me. I would take your C4 over a C5 in CAM-S any day - all the power in a narrower chassis - and any perceived handling deficiency the C4 has could be fixed in CAM trim. The C4 would likely crush CAM-T. But if I really wanted to win CAM-S I would just build a Solstice. For us its about fun, so we will keep the really heavy, stupidly overpowered TT C5.

It wouldn't be that hard to find out if its true, its Raleigh's sandbox, just ask him.