CAM Class

Discussions related to Solo
MARKP
Posts: 8913
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 3:51 pm
Location: Farragut, TN

Re: CAM Class

Post by MARKP » Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:18 pm

All this talk about brakes being approved on CAM cars, new cars... lol...

When someone gets serious about a CAM-C car, it will look like the ridiculous build CAM-T cars. Start with a white body, cut it up to fix all the geometry issues inherent in a production car, lexan, fiberglass, carbon fiber, etc. That's the start.
Mark Pilson
East TN Region RE
SEDiv SDC

dewittpayne
Posts: 1397
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:19 pm
Location: Kingsport, TN

Re: CAM Class

Post by dewittpayne » Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:08 pm

MARKP wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:18 pm
All this talk about brakes being approved on CAM cars, new cars... lol...

When someone gets serious about a CAM-C car, it will look like the ridiculous build CAM-T cars. Start with a white body, cut it up to fix all the geometry issues inherent in a production car, lexan, fiberglass, carbon fiber, etc. That's the start.
For one, replace the strut front suspension with double A arm. You could probably do that now with the Griggs SLA system. The autocross version for the 05-14 S197 is less than $10,000, barely.
DeWitt Payne
2011 Mustang GT CAM-C

"Tires are meant to die young." Heyward Wagner

jcox07
Posts: 4556
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:40 am

Re: CAM Class

Post by jcox07 » Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:46 am

I have driven a couple autocross cars with the griggs suspension and either they didn't know how to set them up or it doesn't transfer from the track to autocross courses cause they were junk.
JY ( Jeff ) Cox
2018-2020 Solo Nationals Co Chairman

steverife
Posts: 8859
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Knoxville, TN

Re: CAM Class

Post by steverife » Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:17 am

MARKP wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:18 pm
All this talk about brakes being approved on CAM cars, new cars... lol...

When someone gets serious about a CAM-C car, it will look like the ridiculous build CAM-T cars. Start with a white body, cut it up to fix all the geometry issues inherent in a production car, lexan, fiberglass, carbon fiber, etc. That's the start.
Don't know who else looked at some CP cars at nats, but I noticed a few that had added some interior bits.

With that said, when you look at the min weights and the limitations of a street tire, I'm not sure how much all of that will get you. I think I'd take great driver in well modded new Camaro over good driver in hypothetical class killer.
'03 MR2 Spyder - PES 89
'16 FRS - PSSC 89

User avatar
John Brown
Posts: 7993
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:05 am

Re: CAM Class

Post by John Brown » Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:25 am

all this chit-chat.. makes me want to stay in STP. The cost could get waaaaay out of hand quickly. The times are very close.. (for now)
ETR Pro Class Champion-2002-03-10-11-12-13-14-15 (the last year of SCCA course design rules)
BMW/CCA D-Mod National Road Racing Champion-2011
Pro-Solo Prepared National Champ-2004
Pro-Solo Prepared National Champ-2005
2016 Dodge Challenger SRT 6.4L CAM-C

jcox07
Posts: 4556
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:40 am

Re: CAM Class

Post by jcox07 » Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:27 am

I am telling you all that cam is about to go nuts on cost as some, not all will start to throw some crazy money at their cars, otherwise it will be only a handful of cars that will be competitive.
Edit: And for the stp nats winner to be 2 seconds faster than the cam c winner should tell you something about prep levels.
JY ( Jeff ) Cox
2018-2020 Solo Nationals Co Chairman

User avatar
John Brown
Posts: 7993
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:05 am

Re: CAM Class

Post by John Brown » Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:46 am

CAM is too slow... or STP is too fast?? lol
ETR Pro Class Champion-2002-03-10-11-12-13-14-15 (the last year of SCCA course design rules)
BMW/CCA D-Mod National Road Racing Champion-2011
Pro-Solo Prepared National Champ-2004
Pro-Solo Prepared National Champ-2005
2016 Dodge Challenger SRT 6.4L CAM-C

MikeKelly
Posts: 1311
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:44 am
Location: Knoxville TN

Re: CAM Class

Post by MikeKelly » Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:53 am

Looks like I now need another 150# of ballast.

But the Corvettes get 100# lighter.
Mike Kelly
"Still got the shovel..."
--Mr. Rate

steverife
Posts: 8859
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Knoxville, TN

Re: CAM Class

Post by steverife » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:41 am

CAM Nation makes me LOL. Its going to be hard not to post there. Thanks Steve!
'03 MR2 Spyder - PES 89
'16 FRS - PSSC 89

steverife
Posts: 8859
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Knoxville, TN

Re: CAM Class

Post by steverife » Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:51 am

John Brown wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:46 am
CAM is too slow... or STP is too fast?? lol
Looking at national and tour results, if you exclude the GM Performance guys, CAMC is currently slower than FS.

I'm betting that changes for '18.
'03 MR2 Spyder - PES 89
'16 FRS - PSSC 89

thrdeye
Posts: 13116
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:31 pm
Location: Lenoir City

Re: CAM Class

Post by thrdeye » Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:16 am

steverife wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:17 am
MARKP wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:18 pm
All this talk about brakes being approved on CAM cars, new cars... lol...

When someone gets serious about a CAM-C car, it will look like the ridiculous build CAM-T cars. Start with a white body, cut it up to fix all the geometry issues inherent in a production car, lexan, fiberglass, carbon fiber, etc. That's the start.
Don't know who else looked at some CP cars at nats, but I noticed a few that had added some interior bits.

With that said, when you look at the min weights and the limitations of a street tire, I'm not sure how much all of that will get you. I think I'd take great driver in well modded new Camaro over good driver in hypothetical class killer.
I'd agree Steve. As our local STM class has shown us, there's only so much a 200 TW will give you. Just like anything else, you need to pick a car that you can get to minimum weight as easily as possible. That said, we all know how dangerous perception is when it comes to what you have to do to prep a car and how quickly perception can kill a class.
Chris Harp
2016 Mazda MX5 - PCS 194

steverife
Posts: 8859
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Knoxville, TN

Re: CAM Class

Post by steverife » Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:30 am

With that said, look at CP. Most of those cars are TERRIBLE. Half the field got beat by 10 seconds by a car that could be converted back to ESP in a weekend. They ALWAYS make good numbers.
'03 MR2 Spyder - PES 89
'16 FRS - PSSC 89

dewittpayne
Posts: 1397
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:19 pm
Location: Kingsport, TN

Re: CAM Class

Post by dewittpayne » Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:24 am

jcox07 wrote:
Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:46 am
I have driven a couple autocross cars with the griggs suspension and either they didn't know how to set them up or it doesn't transfer from the track to autocross courses cause they were junk.
My vote would be setup. When you have more things to adjust, it's really easy to end up in the boonies somewhere, as I discovered this year. A fairly small reduction in rear shock rebound made the car unstable and slow.
DeWitt Payne
2011 Mustang GT CAM-C

"Tires are meant to die young." Heyward Wagner

Miata22
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:45 pm

Re: CAM Class

Post by Miata22 » Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:10 pm

Wow so much talk about CAM! That just gets me pumped about next year. I think CAM is more popular than ever. What's really cool is you can build your shit the way you want it. To me building the car is almost as much fun as Autocrossing the car. I like the Griggs rear suspension. It makes the most engineered since to me. We will see in the spring?
Randy Adkins

Post Reply