CAM Class

Discussions related to Solo
User avatar
MARKP
Posts: 10333
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 3:51 pm
Location: Farragut, TN

Re: CAM Class

Post by MARKP »

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
03 Z06 - Sword
09 Mustang - Club
01 Excursion - The safe you dropped from the 10th story
dewittpayne
Posts: 1503
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:19 pm
Location: Kingsport, TN

Re: CAM Class

Post by dewittpayne »

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: 7030
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:40 am

Re: CAM Class

Post by jcox07 »

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
ETR R.E
2018-2021, 2022, 2023 Solo Nationals Co Chairman
2010 GT500
steverife
Posts: 9897
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Knoxville, TN

Re: CAM Class

Post by steverife »

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.
'16 FRS - PSTX 97
John Brown
Posts: 8798
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:05 am

Re: CAM Class

Post by John Brown »

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
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: 7030
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:40 am

Re: CAM Class

Post by jcox07 »

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
ETR R.E
2018-2021, 2022, 2023 Solo Nationals Co Chairman
2010 GT500
John Brown
Posts: 8798
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:05 am

Re: CAM Class

Post by John Brown »

CAM is too slow... or STP is too fast?? lol
ETR Pro Class Champion-2002-03-10-11-12-13-14-15
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: 1367
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:44 am
Location: Knoxville TN

Re: CAM Class

Post by MikeKelly »

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: 9897
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Knoxville, TN

Re: CAM Class

Post by steverife »

CAM Nation makes me LOL. Its going to be hard not to post there. Thanks Steve!
'16 FRS - PSTX 97
steverife
Posts: 9897
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Knoxville, TN

Re: CAM Class

Post by steverife »

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.
'16 FRS - PSTX 97
thrdeye
Posts: 14085
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:31 pm
Location: Lenoir City

Re: CAM Class

Post by thrdeye »

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
2009 Mazda RX-8 | 2018 Toyota Tundra | 2011 BMW M3
steverife
Posts: 9897
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Knoxville, TN

Re: CAM Class

Post by steverife »

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.
'16 FRS - PSTX 97
dewittpayne
Posts: 1503
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:19 pm
Location: Kingsport, TN

Re: CAM Class

Post by dewittpayne »

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: 588
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:45 pm

Re: CAM Class

Post by Miata22 »

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