S197 Mustang in SCCA Solo: STX vs STU vs ESP?

[Boaisy]

Shhh, they don't know that.

 

[Thinkkker]

I've done some STU testing. I wasn't thrilled with the results. Have trophied in ESP *I put race tires on that year* so its a better fit.

Now, I am past ST with the mods *at least last I looked*. So Ill have to stay ESP. And taking hits of the purple crack is nice!

 

[Whiskey11]

Anyway...the point of all that...I think we're doomed in STU without more tire, or (ideally) some sort of tire allowance based on weight & power. The unscientific testing that Terry and I did last year was enough to make me not consider STU on 285's.

Now, from a non-competition point of view, I have more fun actually driving my car on the street tires. Unfortunately I think winning is more fun than driving.

The idea wasn't about winning and never really was, it was about proving that these cars would either not be overdogs in STX with 285's on whatever wheel or would be a good fit in STU with wider tires. It was also about proving that there was sufficient interest in running these cars in ST to justify this and other allowances to begin with. That all hinges on participation in the class. I DO think with the current crop of STU drivers, a sufficiently talented (read: probably not me) driver could trophy in STU at Nationals, maybe podium.

Again, we gained a lot of momentum and burned a lot of political capital in getting a.) moved (less this than b.)) and b.) the allowances we've gotten since (LCA's and relocation brackets) in an attempt to show that there is actually interest in ST by the pony car crowd but that certain allowances are bouncing most of them to other prep levels. I'm hoping others would join to at least prove that point.

The other interesting thing about this is that we have several folks who are pushing the idea to keep CAM a provisional class without jacket status in an attempt to keep that from becoming the "place" for modified pony cars on street tires specifically to push for the idea of a Street Touring class that fits the currently orphaned cars in ST (pony cars, some of the BMW's, Nissan Z-cars, etc) with some tweaks made to make the class interesting and balanced. I doubt highly such a class would ever exist without at least some interest and support from us with participation numbers.

 

[claudermilk]

More good news for the pony cars. I think it's time for me to order up some "STU" class markings and jump to there.

 

[csamsh]

I agree wholeheartedly Whiskey, I just don't think we'll see much Mustang stu participation past the regional level, mostly because of CAM and partly because of the STU rules.

I feel like the pony car numbers are there. At my last Oklahoma region event, we had 10 CAM entries, 4 ESP, 1 FS and 1 STU. That's 16 mustangs/camaros out of 50 total entries. That wasn't an atypical event. The Dallas events are always fraught with pony cars too.

Our numbers exist. CAM keeps us out of STU. CAM needs to evolve and become official (I still like my idea of CAM2 and CAM, the former for 2 seaters and the latter for 4 seaters and 2+2's) or we need more tire in STU.

The diff covers, LCA's and relos are a GREAT start. I just keep thinking of C5's and 350z's on the same tires and wheels as a Mustang, and don't see how the Mustang has a prayer.

 

[csamsh]

2015 PAX numbers posted...CAM pax seems awfully low. We were using .835 this year...

I don't know how I feel about that...seems low enough to push people out of ESP and STU. At least it's higher than FS.

I believe we would all fall into CAM-C....along with C4 vettes. So...who wants to build a C4 CAM car and win all the things?

http://home.comcast.net/~paxrtp/rtp2015.html

 

[Norm Peterson]

So what distinguishes CAM-C, CAM-T, and CAM-S from each other?


Norm

 

[csamsh]

T is classics, S is two seaters, C is modern. There are more definitions if you look up the speedway motors cam invitational pamphlet from this year's nationals