[DaveC113]

Originally Posted by Msquared

I agree. There are lots more things one could do, but running 12" wheels with 315 Falkens front and rear, camber plates, rear aftermarket toe links (to get more rear camber), the eLSD fix, and not much else would make the car competitive with most CAM-C efforts right now.

A local just tried installing 315s on 12" wide 18s and said 12" is too wide and he'll be using 11s. His opinion, but he's an experienced tech and a nat'l champion driver.

Camber plates and rear toe links aren't worth that much either since the stock struts allow ~2.5 degrees / 2 degrees. You might get an extra ~2 tenths but it won't work for street driving very well.

It seems like a few mods will put most cars on relatively even footing for autox in CAM-C. Some cars need a bit more than others of course but it's interesting how close different cars in CAM-C are to one another.

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by DaveC113

A local just tried installing 315s on 12" wide 18s and said 12" is too wide and he'll be using 11s. His opinion, but he's an experienced tech and a nat'l champion driver.

I've differing "tech" on that. It seems like someone has tried it and just let it poke out and it doesn't hit the fender lip, and/or maybe they used the C7 front lip to sort of cover it. It might take custom flares (see how the rabbit hole starts!). But even if someone just went with 19x11/12 and 305/315 (Falken), they'd gain considerable grip over stock widths.

Camber plates and rear toe links aren't worth that much either since the stock struts allow ~2.5 degrees / 2 degrees. You might get an extra ~2 tenths but it won't work for street driving very well.

You could get a lot more than 0.2 extra camber, and I think most tires would appreciate that for competition driving (especially the Yokohama). But you're right, that's not the ticket for street driving...which is exactly why some people want to stay in Street classes!

It seems like a few mods will put most cars on relatively even footing for autox in CAM-C. Some cars need a bit more than others of course but it's interesting how close different cars in CAM-C are to one another.

True for the most part. The thing is that nobody is pushing the limits of CAM rules. You can build a bespoke tube-frame chassis with whatever suspension you want and use a carbon fiber body that looks kind of like a pony car and run it in CAM-C. You could show up with a car that barely makes weight with a 40/60 weight distribution and really low CG and PMOI, a race-dedicated ABS and TCS, and any amount of power you want (which is the least important part). As long as it has a VIN tag and inspection, you're good to go. Mike Dusold's "1967 Camaro" - ahem - is still legal for CAM-T, as an example.

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by TheRealJA105

I didn't read the proposals, but if you can't add up trimmed parts to a lower trim (like SS 1LE wheel widths/brakes/splitter/sway bars on an SS) and stay in the same class, it's STUPID!

BTW, I don't know why I didn't think to add this earlier, but if you have a regular SS and want to run 1LE parts, you can. You just have to change over all the parts: springs, swaybars, seats (the SS can be ordered with the Recaros as a standalone option though), brakes (again, can be ordered on the SS), and the eLSD. There might be a couple suspension links with different bushings or something. All modules controlling the various driving modes and PTM would have to be swapped over, too. The eLSD and modules would be the hard parts, I think.

But really, why would anybody do that? If you just order an SS without 1LE but with the Recaros, magride, and big Brembos, you get within $15 of the price of a 1LE. Why not just order/buy a 1LE?

[DaveC113]

Originally Posted by Msquared

I've differing "tech" on that. It seems like someone has tried it and just let it poke out and it doesn't hit the fender lip, and/or maybe they used the C7 front lip to sort of cover it. It might take custom flares (see how the rabbit hole starts!). But even if someone just went with 19x11/12 and 305/315 (Falken), they'd gain considerable grip over stock widths.


You could get a lot more than 0.2 extra camber, and I think most tires would appreciate that for competition driving (especially the Yokohama). But you're right, that's not the ticket for street driving...which is exactly why some people want to stay in Street classes!


True for the most part. The thing is that nobody is pushing the limits of CAM rules. You can build a bespoke tube-frame chassis with whatever suspension you want and use a carbon fiber body that looks kind of like a pony car and run it in CAM-C. You could show up with a car that barely makes weight with a 40/60 weight distribution and really low CG and PMOI, a race-dedicated ABS and TCS, and any amount of power you want (which is the least important part). As long as it has a VIN tag and inspection, you're good to go. Mike Dusold's "1967 Camaro" - ahem - is still legal for CAM-T, as an example.

Sorry, not 2 tenths of a degree more camber with plates, you can go further than you'd want to. I've been told the difference between 2.5 and 3.2 degrees front camber (which was recommended as ideal) might be around 2 tenths of a second on a 45s course. Not my own experience but the info is from a couple folks with decades of experience, shop owner and nat'l champ driver with a Camaro. If I have issues with tire wear I may need to run camber plates though, we'll see...

The rules require a full interior in CAM-C, but not sure if that means stock interior or not. I suppose you could do a high performance resto-mod racecar type thing, but that's a lot of cash to win a class that'll never compete for a FTD.

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by DaveC113

The rules require a full interior in CAM-C, but not sure if that means stock interior or not.

I does not require it to be stock. In fact...

I suppose you could do a high performance resto-mod racecar type thing, but that's a lot of cash to win a class that'll never compete for a FTD.

...those were exactly the cars that CAM was originally intended to attract.

[PedalFaster]

Originally Posted by joelster

BtW most SCCA stuff seems to be dying out, not just FS.

Registration for Nationals has been open for a bit over ten hours now. 913 people signed up so far.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by joelster

BtW most SCCA stuff seems to be dying out, not just FS.

Originally Posted by PedalFaster

Registration for Nationals has been open for a bit over ten hours now. 913 people signed up so far.

Current Street class registrations:

Super Street (28)
A Street (38)
B Street (38)
C Street (30)
D Street (32)
E Street (49)
F Street (12)
G Street (31)
H Street (35)

One of these classes doesn't look like the others.

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by clyde

One of these classes doesn't look like the others.

I predict that it will next year!

[94boosted]

Originally Posted by clyde

One of these classes doesn't look like the others.

I know you're saying FS but holy crap do a lot of people seem to want to drive 22 year old Miata's

[clyde]

Originally Posted by 94boosted

I know you're saying FS but holy crap do a lot of people seem to want to drive 22 year old Miata's

I don't know... ES cars are tiny, super light, and pretty cheap to operate which really makes them ideal for autocross. Not sure I could compete in ES, though.

OTOH, my codriver and I don't know yet if we're taking my Camaro or in his 22 year old CSP Miata, so... still dunno.

[apexit53]

Originally Posted by clyde

I don't know... ES cars are tiny, super light, and pretty cheap to operate which really makes them ideal for autocross. Not sure I could compete in ES, though.

OTOH, my codriver and I don't know yet if we're taking my Camaro or in his 22 year old CSP Miata, so... still dunno.

either way its going to be a blood bath. BS looks insanely stacked and CSP always is!

[Mountain]

Originally Posted by Msquared

I've differing "tech" on that. It seems like someone has tried it and just let it poke out and it doesn't hit the fender lip, and/or maybe they used the C7 front lip to sort of cover it. It might take custom flares (see how the rabbit hole starts!). But even if someone just went with 19x11/12 and 305/315 (Falken), they'd gain considerable grip over stock widths.


You could get a lot more than 0.2 extra camber, and I think most tires would appreciate that for competition driving (especially the Yokohama). But you're right, that's not the ticket for street driving...which is exactly why some people want to stay in Street classes!


True for the most part. The thing is that nobody is pushing the limits of CAM rules. You can build a bespoke tube-frame chassis with whatever suspension you want and use a carbon fiber body that looks kind of like a pony car and run it in CAM-C. You could show up with a car that barely makes weight with a 40/60 weight distribution and really low CG and PMOI, a race-dedicated ABS and TCS, and any amount of power you want (which is the least important part). As long as it has a VIN tag and inspection, you're good to go. Mike Dusold's "1967 Camaro" - ahem - is still legal for CAM-T, as an example.

Although I can only provide feedback, and not any real conclusive data on this, but I went from 19x10/19x11 with 275/315 RT660 to 19x10.5/19x11 with 305/315 RT660 on the same autox surface, similar weather conditions, although different course; however a "similar" course (as there isn't a whole lot you can do drastically different at the site): immediate and very noticeable difference in how the car is able to navigate corners. The front end is much, much more confident. If you get into understeer, you can correct really quick and easy and really avoid hurting a run. This is with changing absolutely nothing else with the car.

Add in some more front camber with camber plates, to which I agree, you should be able to get into the -3's up front and utilize more of the tread better/more efficiently. There is maybe a little bit to gain to going 11" up front, but I don't know that it's substantial. I guess, if you don't go with camber plates/can't grab more front camber, I can see going with 11" up front being a worthwhile move, than if you had -3-something front camber. I am at -2.6 and am right at the line between bad wear on the street and good wear on track. Right around -3 degrees, I think would be a nice to be at for the track, but I think those extra few tenths-of-a-degree will just destroy the inside shoulder of the tire on the street, even at 0-toe or slight positive toe.

10.5"/11" or 11"/11" wheel width setups on these cars seems like a really good spot. I have a hard time believing the effort to run 12"/12" (mainly the front) outweighs the easier options in the former mentioned and just concentrating on your driving.

[DaveC113]

Originally Posted by Mountain

Although I can only provide feedback, and not any real conclusive data on this, but I went from 19x10/19x11 with 275/315 RT660 to 19x10.5/19x11 with 305/315 RT660 on the same autox surface, similar weather conditions, although different course; however a "similar" course (as there isn't a whole lot you can do drastically different at the site): immediate and very noticeable difference in how the car is able to navigate corners. The front end is much, much more confident. If you get into understeer, you can correct really quick and easy and really avoid hurting a run. This is with changing absolutely nothing else with the car.

Add in some more front camber with camber plates, to which I agree, you should be able to get into the -3's up front and utilize more of the tread better/more efficiently. There is maybe a little bit to gain to going 11" up front, but I don't know that it's substantial. I guess, if you don't go with camber plates/can't grab more front camber, I can see going with 11" up front being a worthwhile move, than if you had -3-something front camber. I am at -2.6 and am right at the line between bad wear on the street and good wear on track. Right around -3 degrees, I think would be a nice to be at for the track, but I think those extra few tenths-of-a-degree will just destroy the inside shoulder of the tire on the street, even at 0-toe or slight positive toe.

10.5"/11" or 11"/11" wheel width setups on these cars seems like a really good spot. I have a hard time believing the effort to run 12"/12" (mainly the front) outweighs the easier options in the former mentioned and just concentrating on your driving.

The 2 tenths was time and not camber, that was a misunderstanding... You can have whatever camber you want w/plates. It's not worth that much time going from 2.5 to 3.2 degrees, a couple tenths of a second or so.

Also, 315s are not ideal on 12" wide wheels so unless you're running the 335 Rivals 12s may not be a good idea. A local with 12s mounted 315s and decided it didn't work and went with 11s instead. He has good results running 335 square Rivals but AFAIK that's the only option in that size.

I went with the 19x11 et35 APEX SM-10 setup that uses 26mm spacers up front. Running RE71s in 305/30/19. I only have one event with them so far but am very happy.

[Msquared]

Originally Posted by DaveC113

Also, 315s are not ideal on 12" wide wheels so unless you're running the 335 Rivals 12s may not be a good idea. A local with 12s mounted 315s and decided it didn't work and went with 11s instead. He has good results running 335 square Rivals but AFAIK that's the only option in that size.

I think that somewhat depends on the brand/model of tire. I believe the 315 Rivals are fine on 11" wheels (that's what I ran on my C4). But the Yoks and new Falkens seem to like wider wheels, and almost everyone is running the 315s on 12" wheels.