Brainstorming: "min max" CAM-T car
11-21-2016, 11:28 AM
#1
Brainstorming: "min max" CAM-T car I've been spending a bit of time contemplating a min/max approach to CAM-T. Avid gamers may be familiar with the concept: Some guy builds a game character/robot/whatever that is technically compliant with the prevailing rules, but minimizes or maximizes certain stats in a way that makes for a much better chance of their avatar to prevail. A lot.
Gear heads do this by maximizing HP and available traction. Well, what about the other aspects of a car, like size, wheelbase, weight? What would be a good car to provide a platform for a CAM-T autocross beast? For instance, it's widely accepted that the Mazda Miata is a formidable autocross car. Are there American made, front engine, rear drive, musclecar era cars that would be the equivalent?
Food for thought: S10 pickup, Chevy Monza, Ford Mustang II/Pinto?
Gear heads do this by maximizing HP and available traction. Well, what about the other aspects of a car, like size, wheelbase, weight? What would be a good car to provide a platform for a CAM-T autocross beast? For instance, it's widely accepted that the Mazda Miata is a formidable autocross car. Are there American made, front engine, rear drive, musclecar era cars that would be the equivalent?
Food for thought: S10 pickup, Chevy Monza, Ford Mustang II/Pinto?
11-22-2016, 10:18 AM
#2
On The Tree
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds like you want to stand out in the Mustang/Camaro crowd. (which you already do with the screaming indian) The Pinto that you mentioned sounds interesting, but will probably lack aftermarket support. If you are a Ford guy, a maverick sounds cool!.
12-01-2016, 07:19 AM
#4
On The Tree
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "perfect" car for you An early 70's Mercury Capri. A German built, I.R.S. with a curb weight hovering around 2200 ponds with a 4 cylinder. Who knows, maybe an "old style" aluminum block 302 will fit. Probably 2400 pond race weight. This car is about 2.5 feet shorter and almost a foot narrower than your TA.
12-01-2016, 08:37 AM
#5
If Capri...a Foxbody would be more easily obtainable. LS2, Coil overs, 99-04 Cobra IRA or go PHB/TA setup, 315's.
Things I have thought of is car weight to tire width aspect. A Miata with 15x9's running 275 square may be comparable to a Fbody with 315's. Yet the Miata having a overall smaller footprint can be more nimble as you know....they just lack power.
I think it would be a blast to have a LS swapped Miata with coil overs, 275+ square slicks and a 6 speed. But I realize you can't use a Miata in CAM
Things I have thought of is car weight to tire width aspect. A Miata with 15x9's running 275 square may be comparable to a Fbody with 315's. Yet the Miata having a overall smaller footprint can be more nimble as you know....they just lack power.
I think it would be a blast to have a LS swapped Miata with coil overs, 275+ square slicks and a 6 speed. But I realize you can't use a Miata in CAM
12-01-2016, 03:26 PM
#6
A friend has a ls3 Miata. That car is just plain sick. It unfortunately won't work for CAM-T, unless I drop a Monza or sunbird shell over the Miata bottom half :-)
Most monzas need that replaced anyway, due to rust.
The fox body could be interesting, but its not a huge difference in track width from the fbody. It appears to be about 8" shorter in wheelbase tho...
I'm imagining an early Capri with a GM 3.6 v6 / t56 combo now
Most monzas need that replaced anyway, due to rust.
The fox body could be interesting, but its not a huge difference in track width from the fbody. It appears to be about 8" shorter in wheelbase tho...
I'm imagining an early Capri with a GM 3.6 v6 / t56 combo now
Trending Topics
12-02-2016, 07:04 AM
#8
What types of car have historically done well or are fast in CAM-T? If you are starting from scratch you may as well pick the best platform lol.
It's like me in my Fbody wanting to be as fast as a C5...but I'll never get there. The Fbody chassis will always fall short of a C5 setup.
Oh and YES please!
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/...20160304210900
What about a Fiero?
https://ls1tech.com/forums/conversio...l#post19467629
It's like me in my Fbody wanting to be as fast as a C5...but I'll never get there. The Fbody chassis will always fall short of a C5 setup.
Oh and YES please!
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/...20160304210900
What about a Fiero?
https://ls1tech.com/forums/conversio...l#post19467629
12-02-2016, 11:26 AM
#9
Fiero's are heavy. Heavy frame. Easily 2700lbs.
FWIW, CAM classes are "interesting" but they are just too open. It seems to go against regular SCCA class mentality of strictly managed performance. CAM is neat for creativity and cars not fitting a normal class, exactly their goal. I've seen guys put their ESP car in CAM because they seem too lazy to just make sure it's actually ESP legal; or they figure they can win a class b/c real ESP is too hard and the competition in CAM is so varied and contains things like 1970s Novas that will simply never be truly fast, they can pick up trophies. So in the end CAM was created to entice guys with cars to come and participate, not for (already hard core SCCA) participants to make cars that conform to the rules.
FWIW, CAM classes are "interesting" but they are just too open. It seems to go against regular SCCA class mentality of strictly managed performance. CAM is neat for creativity and cars not fitting a normal class, exactly their goal. I've seen guys put their ESP car in CAM because they seem too lazy to just make sure it's actually ESP legal; or they figure they can win a class b/c real ESP is too hard and the competition in CAM is so varied and contains things like 1970s Novas that will simply never be truly fast, they can pick up trophies. So in the end CAM was created to entice guys with cars to come and participate, not for (already hard core SCCA) participants to make cars that conform to the rules.
12-02-2016, 01:52 PM
#10
I am somewhat along the lines of "they seem too lazy to just make sure it's actually ESP legal". I like to modify and tinker/upgrade and I'm not too fond of being "limited" to building my car to a specific class. I'm simply enjoying the race/modify+upgrade/race mentality right now. I go into whatever class I fit as to not upset the hardcore group lol.
For example I am currently ESP legal with exception of slotted stock K member for more camber on stock control arms using Strano springs. BUT I race local and no one cares not to mention my regional ESP class is somewhat non existent. I also don't care to run national stuff. Next up I would like rod ended bits...not ESP legal. Eventually a H/C/I motor.
But with CAM having nothing but a tire TW limit, min weight limit, and a semi-finished interior...the rules are wide open. No suspension limits, no motor limits no brake limits. Seems like the best car would be the smallest/lightest factory car produced within the years allowed so you don't worry as much about shaving weight.
OP, you have done a lot to your current car...why is it not being considered for CAM-T?
For example I am currently ESP legal with exception of slotted stock K member for more camber on stock control arms using Strano springs. BUT I race local and no one cares not to mention my regional ESP class is somewhat non existent. I also don't care to run national stuff. Next up I would like rod ended bits...not ESP legal. Eventually a H/C/I motor.
But with CAM having nothing but a tire TW limit, min weight limit, and a semi-finished interior...the rules are wide open. No suspension limits, no motor limits no brake limits. Seems like the best car would be the smallest/lightest factory car produced within the years allowed so you don't worry as much about shaving weight.
OP, you have done a lot to your current car...why is it not being considered for CAM-T?
12-02-2016, 11:52 PM
#11
Trust me, I do consider the car I've got AND I do race it. Road race: not much I'd change, I just take it out and beat on it. AutoX: I need to do some alignment magic, buy a set of 200 TW tires and upgrade the driver to be nationally competitive (or as close as you can get with a stock front subframe and solid rear axle). It is just hard to escape the fact that smaller platform cars can cook through a tight course more ably. They weigh less. Their wheelbase and trackwidth are smaller than typical classic muscle cars.
My musings are more more along the lines of what smaller cars would fit the requirements and spirit of CAM-T while also bringing the advantage of their size to give them a leg up on the competition. At 3000ish pounds, my TA is slim for a fbody--pretty much at the limit of what can be taken away without expensive and obvious weight reduction mods. But compare that to a pinto or vega. Both start out with a lot less weight to toss around TIGHT corners, speed up or slow down.
My musings are more more along the lines of what smaller cars would fit the requirements and spirit of CAM-T while also bringing the advantage of their size to give them a leg up on the competition. At 3000ish pounds, my TA is slim for a fbody--pretty much at the limit of what can be taken away without expensive and obvious weight reduction mods. But compare that to a pinto or vega. Both start out with a lot less weight to toss around TIGHT corners, speed up or slow down.
12-03-2016, 10:05 AM
#12
But CAM T requires no less than 3000lbs (without driver). So you are at the weight minimum with the Fbody, but if you buy a smaller Vega etc you still need to meet the 3000b min limit...and maybe even ADD weight to meet regulation?
The only benefit then becomes the more compact size you mentioned.
The only benefit then becomes the more compact size you mentioned.
12-03-2016, 03:06 PM
#16
On The Tree
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adding weight to a smaller, lighter car to make minimums sounds like a good thing. It would seem like you could manipulate weight to a perfect balance, not to mention the added ballast could be 3" above the ground.
12-03-2016, 03:55 PM
#17
What he said. Ballast is king. Make the car as light as possible, put the weight where it benefits the most. Reminds me of our old GrandAm corvette - rules said minimum weight was 2550. Car was lightened to the extreme, required quite a bit of ballast to meet minumum. Put it as low as possible, the car was bad fast.