Take part in the future of 200tw autocrossing

The SCCA’s unlimited production-based 200tw autocross divisions–Classic American Muscle and Xtreme–are ready to roll out their 2023 rules package, and you’re invited to take part in a live town hall to help finalize the guidelines.

Taking place at 8 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, December 14, the town hall will review the initial rules proposal from last week, which has now been updated based on member feedback. While the rules committee feels the package is fairly solid after the comment period, there are still a few details to hash out in real time, and direct input from the competitors will help put the finishing touches on the rule sheet.

The CAM and X classes are the SCCA’s most open rule sets: Start with a car with a VIN and let your imagination run wild, so long as the build remains on 200tw rubber. The CAM classes focus on American muscle cars; Corvettes, Camaros, Mustangs and Challengers make up the bulk of their ranks. The X classes are a place for unlimited versions of import sports cars and domestic cars not covered by the CAM rules; look for Miatas, Honda CRXs and S2000s, Nissan Z-cars, Subaru WRXs and even a few pieces of exotic hardware, like the C8 Corvette and Audi R8, to populate these grids.

The CAM/X rules committee, made up of the SCCA’s Brian Mason and Rick Myers, Solo Events Board member Nick Dunlap and our own J.G. Pasterjak, who will be competing in the X class in our 1991 Toyota MR2 project car, shaped the current rules package to align the guidelines of the existing–and successful–CAM classes with the new X division, which will hopefully bring the “anything goes” model to a wider selection of cars. Nearly 30 X-class cars competed in their first inclusion in the Tire Rack SCCA Solo Nationals in 2022, making it one of the most successful class rollouts in SCCA Solo history.

After registering, you’ll receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.

Comments

Panhandler GRM+ Memberand New Reader
12/13/22 5:08 p.m.

Are the proposed rules somewhere we can review them?

sleepyhead the buffalo GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
12/13/22 5:19 p.m.

Panhandler said:
Are the proposed rules somewhere we can review them?

this is the link JG posted to the FB.group last week:
https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_files/scca/downloads/000/065/237/2023%20CAM%20and%20Xtreme%20Rules%20Draft%20includes%20CAM%20XS%20EV%20v11.pdf?1670270024

I don't know if that's the "updated" file he mentioned above, or not... though?

JG Pasterjak Production/Art Director
12/13/22 5:27 p.m.

sleepyhead the buffalo said:
Panhandler said:
Are the proposed rules somewhere we can review them?

this is the link JG posted to the FB.group last week:
https://cdn.connectsites.net/user_files/scca/downloads/000/065/237/2023%20CAM%20and%20Xtreme%20Rules%20Draft%20includes%20CAM%20XS%20EV%20v11.pdf?1670270024

I don't know if that's the "updated" file he mentioned above, or not... though?

The updated file is still—well, as of about 30 seconds ago when I closed my email app—being finalized. And it wil probably get tiny tweaks right up to meeting time. But the proposal is darn close at this point.

sleepyhead the buffalo GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
12/14/22 6:00 p.m.

I meant to write this this morning... but got distracted by 2023 Prius content.

Caveats:
I am not an SCCA member.
I have not competed in XS, nor Solo... except one event back in 2015.
I have a deep-seated hatred for the Solo GCR, the Road Race GCR, and the SCCA.TT classing.
I realize my comments to follow will sound similar to the "That's not a $2000 car" comments GRM $Challenge gets.
I believe I understand the current reasoning behind the points I'm about to criticize.

those out of the way...

I really don't agree with the restriction requiring that HEV/PHEV/BEV vehicles retain OEM battery systems in a class that is named "extreme" and is intended to allow an "anything goes" approach to street-vehicle modification.

I understand that this is probably because of the concern about modifications to these systems leaving the subject cars to becoming significant fire hazards. {feel free to insert your own image of a burning Tesla}?

However, as written, this rule would seem to restrict allowing to "upswap" a CR-Z with a NiMH pack to an OE Lithium pack from a later CR-Z... or utilize an OE Civic IMA module to provide higher assist. Similarly, it would technically restrict updating a 2G/3G Prius to using 4G NiMH cells, or any aftermarket NiMH pack replacement. Further, it restricts the use of ProjectLithium LiFePo4 swaps into 2nd/3rd/4th gen Prius or various Camry Hybrid and HS-250h's. Or 48kWh pack swapping early 1G Leaf with a 'base' 2G pack.

All of these example applications will work within the existing architecture of their vehicle's EV systems, and would have minimal enhanced fire susceptibility... but are denied thanks to the lack of experience with the subject by the current rules committee... and yes, the concern that smaller regions would potentially lack the information/experience/equipment to handle an EV system change, adjudicate it's reasonableness, nor an ability to deal with a voltage induced fire.

I do expect this is currently a "niche"/"corner" case variety of concern. However, you asked for feedback... so it seems like a reasonable time/place to raise this... so that a) those of on the forum with some experience can chime in; b) the "powers-that-be" can begin considering/learning about the topic in order to eventually allow legitimate "anything goes" performance enhancements.

Edit:

Also, these rules continue to "effectively" preclude the participation of EV swaps in Solo.

Panhandler GRM+ Memberand New Reader
12/14/22 6:12 p.m.

Why the exclusion of the Kumho V720's?

Panhandler GRM+ Memberand New Reader
12/14/22 6:28 p.m.

I don't see a class for V8 Miata's. XB doesn't include 8 cylinder engines. XS has min weight of 2680 for tire width of 275 or less. A Miata with Ford 5.0 or LS wouldn't fit in either class...

QuasiMofo (John Brown) GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
12/14/22 8:01 p.m.

In reply to Panhandler :

XS?

Bigben HalfDork
12/14/22 10:28 p.m.

In reply to Panhandler :

I was thinking along the same lines. The minimum weights are too high for older imports. A fully dressed VW, Fiat, MG, etc. that hasn't been lightened will not make the minimum class weight.

A few more items:

"Exposed metal interior surfaces must be painted." Why? This seems like arbitrary nonsense. This isn't a car show and I don't see how a coat of paint provides any safety.
CAM-S and XS both state "Interior floor covering may be removed." Does this imply that the other CAM and Xtreme classes must have carpet? If so this would be another arbitrary restriction.
Wings - This rule seems pretty straightforward and overall a little more lenient than what I remember of the XP class rules such as allowing the wing to extend a distance behind the body. My concern is the chord length restriction. If I remember correctly in XP there is no chord restriction but there is a total wing area restriction that includes both elements. I have a narrow car so I built a wing to maximize the allowed wing area. This resulted in an 18" chord length, which by the propsed Xtreme class rules would be illegal. However, a wing with 2 elements each with a 12" chord would be within the rules for Xtreme, but would exceed the allowable wing area for XP. That seems like an undesirable inconsistency.