American Muscle Car Challenge

[billnchristy]

The news is about the new series.

It is taking shape as we speak.

The plan is to call it: American Muscle Car Challenge.

The series will be open to all '03 spec T/A, GA GTS, and SCCA GT1 cars.

There are 2 classes GTS and GT1.

A single point will be awarded for every car you place ahead of, so the points system will vary race to race with car entries (an idea I like a lot). These points are also set up so a GT1 driver could win the championship also.

Rules are still being hashed out but will probably remain true to GT1 and T/A current rules. Weight might be added to equalize competition and if any car has an "unfair" advantage the rules will be tweaked to fix that.

The series plans to run at:
Easter weekend Road Atlanta
May 18th Mosport (We can be the feature)
June Carolina Motorsports Park
July 4th Lime Rock Park (With ALMS)
August Pocono Long Course (With a car club)
September Mid West
October Dominican Republic (Sponsorship shared and transport travel and lodging consideration possible)

All this of course depends on car count and cost of venues, but talks are in the works.

(and now for my opinion)

If this series makes it off the ground it could become very popular. It has all the elements that are lacking in T/A on paper. The ability to compete for no extra money for GT1 drivers and a T/A equality that does not exist. I for one am very excite

[gttouring]

this does sound like the best proposal- and T/A should have the name passed over by SCCA -Pro, or PG should suck up and really make it work like these guys, there is no reason for it not to, I don't enjoy splintering of competitors and series when they run similar or the same equipment. But these guys have the right Idea. I really like the points system, it is all quite exciting.
American Muscle car challenge?
I like NASA's American Iron Series title better-but as its taken.... since when is the Oldsmobile cutlass which is run in GT1 a muscle car? it was a v6 front driver-bleh.

[Patrick B]

I like it. the Trans-Am name means nothing to me anyways. Actual the TA name has more negatives to it then positives... In my opinion.

[19dodge]

Grand Am GTS Cars. does this include the Saleen S7R then too? (since it raced in grand am 2003 in a few races)

[billnchristy]

no just the former AGT cars i believe.

[GP Racer]

So where does this leave Gentilozzi and his T/A series or whatever it is? I thought OWRS "purchased" the series(Motorock) and are supposed to run with Champ Cars?

And where does this leave the SCCA T/A series?

Will these cease to exist, or will they compete against this up-start series? Will this series become part of the SCCA?

This is starting to sound like a CART/IRL debacle! Everyone villified Tony George for splitting the open wheel series, but they seem to be in love with the idea of the oldest continuous series, T/A, being broken-up or dissolved completely.

Wow, what a mess the road racing world here is becoming!

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by billnchristy
The plan is to call it: American Muscle Car Challenge.

I could be mistaken but isn't there already a vintage racing series or event with this name?

[Cheyne]

OWRS only purchased Trans-Am Racing, LLC (TARS) which is the company that operated Trans-Am the series for the SCCA in 2003. The SCCA still owns the series, but OWRS is also trying to buy Trans-Am from the SCCA. The threat from OWRS is that they will run the series with our with out the Trans-Am name.

I would like to see Trans-Am live, but things don't look good right now. When Paul took over TA and all of his ideas came out at the 2002 PRI show the teams were excited, especially the GT1 teams (like my self). We were suppose to be allowed to run GT1 bodywork and engines. There was also going to be a GT1 Championship inside the Trans-Am series. Not one month after the PRI show things started to come apart. First was the bodywork and motors. You needed to updated your bodywork and high compression 358ci motors would not be legal. Nothing ever happened with the GT1 Championship. Also turn out was very low at each race. By the time the series had reached Road America they were willing to let cars like mine run with no changes, now I wished I had run RA. Then as we got closer to the end of the season it was announced that GM powered teams would have to run the SB2 310ci motors in 2004. While most of the top GM powered teams already have these motors they are not very common in GT1 or with the back of the pack TA teams. To convert over I would have had to sell my two 18 degree 358ci motors (that I just bought) and buy at least to SB2 motors 310ci motors. Also even if I had switch motors for 2004 in 2005 I would have to switch again with the proposed move to OHC and DOHC motors. With all of this going on more teams have announced they are leaving TA than announce new TA programs, actually I haven't heard of anyone announcing a new TA program for 2004.

I don't see the new series, which I support, in the same way I see the IRL/CART split. In the IRL/CART split I see two sides fighting over the money and power. In the Trans-Am/AMCC (also Grand-Am is somewhat involved since they have all but dumped the tube frame cars) split I see team owner/drivers trying to save the type of racing they have spent a lot of their own money and effort on. If we have to kill TA to save V8 powered tube frame road racing then so be it.

Cheyne Daggett
www.daggettracing.com
GT1 Olds Cutlass

[Cheyne]

Originally posted by gttouring
since when is the Oldsmobile cutlass which is run in GT1 a muscle car? it was a v6 front driver-bleh.

When Olds decided they need a more performance image for the Cutlass back in the late 80's. The beauty of the tube frame car is that I can put any body on my chassis and presto have a new car. My current car started life as Frings chassis with a 1984 Camaro body. When Olds was dumping money in to IMSA GTO the bodywork was changed to a Cutlass. If it were not for the $15k price tag I would switch to a Corvette...anyone want to pay the bill for me?

Also when the Olds Cutlass/ Toronado started racing in IMSA and Trans-Am they were V6 powered cars. Back when Irv Hoerr, Bob Sharp (with Paul Newman) and Paul G. (hence the name Rocketsports) were running Oldsmobile's.

Cheyne Daggett
Not a fan of Oldsmobile, but I do race one.

[cybersdorf]

...

[cybersdorf]

http://www.vintagerpm.com/olds_cutlass.htm
http://gto-racing.nexenservices.com/...asssupreme.htm
It was a V6 front driver - just like what they drive in NASCAR.

[cybersdorf]

Originally posted by Cheyne
The beauty of the tube frame car is that I can put any body on my chassis...

...any body that's eligible according to the series regs., and will be supplied, for top $$$, by the one official manufacturer, hopefully in a decent build quality.

And hey presto, you end up with only Corvettes and Mustangs on the grid. That's the downside of current tubeframe racing.

[cybersdorf]

one more, just for kicks:
http://www.tropiczoneracing.com/images/Oldsdayw.jpg

[gttouring]

Yeah cheyne- i have seen your car before and your website from the TAINTL- i really do like the spaceship front face of the cutlass, but it is time to update
what is PG's beef with the GT1 cars and gys? he is kind of a jerk about T/A which should be just a kick-ass series (if Speed TC can get 50+ cars a grid why can't T/A??)
so bring the GT1 i thought that his new tech factory cars could beat anything out their anyway the 358 motors should stay and the 4.5Litre DOHC motors should make the power if he wasn't pandering wit the tech and the manufacturers, pansy.
I really was excited too for the mega Trans-Am league with the GT1 but he balked and floundered being scared some 'older car' would beat his precious child, rocketsports- its racing step up Paul, and build a faster car.
No real complaints about rebodies though, I like the flared arches and big wing of the newer TA shells especially on the Mustang, I 'd bet there are plenty of bodies you could use and do well in.
Good luck all with the AMCC- Cheyne and visit here often.
now if you AMCC guys can take the T/A name or convince Paul "i'm to gentle-ozzi to lose" maybe we can have the road racing this continent really needs.

[GP Racer]

Hey Cheyne, welcome to the forum, and thanks for clearing up some of my questions.

I really don't know how drivers today deal with all the complexities of modern day racing. I'm just glad you do!

[Cheyne]

Thanks guys.

It is hard, but we the drivers and teams owners have to look out for our own interestes. No one else is going to. Woodson is a brave man. It takes a ton of work to run a series that is established, but if he had not taken up the battle I don't know who would have. TA is not looking good, which is a true shame. I have been around GT1, TA, IMSA GTO/GTS cars since early in high school and all I have wanted to do is race. Shoot last year my wife and I spent a little over 40% of our after tax income on my racing and my daughters karting.

I don't have all the answers, but if you have a question about TA/AMCC/GT1 type of racing fire away or send me a email.

Cheyne Daggett
Daggett Racing
www.daggettracing.com

[Bob Riebe]

Cheyne:
It is good to see you here.
As I have said to you before, I sympathize with your equipment problems, but I also said I hate the "tube-frame" thingies.
In 1981 SCCA said they wanted for their cars to become NASCAR like and they succeeded. The cars are as relevant to the cars sold on the street as an unlimited hydroplane is ton a bass boat.
NASCAR catered to and nurtured, "hero worshipping" dullards, that does not work in road racing. The cars are the stars and unless they go back to cars that have a true connection with the cars on the street, the state of road racing will continue to fester and rot.
It is a dilema, especially from your side that has zero quick fixes or answers. The parts books are still full of engines such as yours, so they are not vintage by any means.
And so it goes.
Bob Riebe

[Cheyne]

The problem with building a "production" based car is that you are really building a tube frame car inside the production based car. When the SCCA went tube frame it was only partially because of NASCAR. The main reason was the cars were already tube framed. The shop I was hanging out at that time build a 1980 Corvette for Trans-Am. We started with the orginal frame rail. Then we ran round tube up the frame rail and cut holes in the frame to attach the roll cage to the round tube. There was nothing left from the orginal Corvette. The body work came from Greenwood and the suspension was hung off the roll cage. This is why the SCCA went tube frame. It is just easier to build and maintian the cars. Tube frame cars are just a evolution of the orginal TA type cars. Generally those who are opposed to tube frame cars just don't understand them or have not worked on them. Once a upon a time I raced a Porsche in DProd. I wrecked the first one and had to junk it since the front clip was trashed. My first GT1 car also hit the same wall at Road America. We took the car home cut off the clip and put on a new one. I went to the track three weeks later and raced...with a new front geometry that helped the performace of the car.

Cheyne

[muggle not]

It was only a few years ago (season 2000) that Trans Am was getting fields of 35 to 40 cars. Things sure went downhill fast. Tom Gloy/Butch Leitzinger must have seen the writing on the wall early as they bailed out and Gloy proceeded to sell his equipment. Then the others started bailing out. When Stu Hayner called it quits you knew there were serious problems. I, also, give Woodson a lot of credit for attempting to resurrect Trans Am style racing.

It may be that some of the problems started when Sanchez had to withdraw from the Panoz/Sanchez partnership. Say what you want about that partnership but I know of at least one team that they tried to help by sending a film crew to make a promotional video of the team to help with the team's sponsorship hunt. That type of help has been lacking recently.

[Cheyne]

About forgot the reason NASCAR went tube frame was ease of use and the SCCA went tube frame for both ease of use and it was the next step in the evolution of building real race cars.

Cheyne

[Cheyne]

The problem with the Sanchez/Panoz group was how they treated the teams. They were looking to turn Trans-Am in to a all pro teams traveling circus. Trans-Am has never been a all profesional teams series. Even in the series two golden periods (66 to 73 and early 80's to mid 90's) the series basicly had three groups. The first was the top pro teams who had factory backing or very good sponsors. The second was the semi pro teams that usually had two cars. One for a paid driver and the second with a rich guy who was funding the operation. The last group of the local private teams that rounded out the fields. The first problem for the PSG folks was the top teams had left before they took over. Then PSG chased away the amature teams that ran partial schedules. I was told I was not needed if I couldn't run all the races.

Cheyne

[gttouring]

too bad because the PSG group were the ones who started to bring the new bodies- which are wuite handsome.
the flared fenders and rear wings set TA into an agressive real world car look, better than the AllSport Mustang style which was just a reall wide pancaked style bodyshell, why weren't the other body shells encouraged or fitted to more competitors? what was the slow down there? and what's the big problem with having semi proteams and local guys, it really throws a wrench in the championship fights, when the local guys have an upper hand- its called competition, put up or shut up.

[Cheyne]

The biggest problem with the body work was the fact that one company, which was also a team in Trans-Am, was the only provider of body work for the Corvette and Mustang. Also the PSG management tried to force everyone to move to the new body work, which while it looks nice doesn't fit very good and on most Camaro's you would have to cut off the cage and do a lot of other changes to make it fit. The real reason behind the PSG take over of TA was to make it into a Panoz spec series and to get the SCCA to make GT1 also into a spec Panoz series. When this failed Panoz left right away with P.G. to pick up the pieces and then things just got worse.

Cheyne

[Bob Riebe]

Cheyne:
I spoke with Joe Chamberlain who had a Cat.II Corvette, yes it was tube frame as the only stock part necessary were the frame rails, which could be eliminated if the new rails mimicked the original, and firewall with windshield and doors.
Things such as pick-up points, hub centers, and a complete unpenetrated stock firewall were very closely monitored to maintain the stock dimensions. The distance from a set point on the firewall to hub centers only had an allowance of a franction of an inch, as did wheelbase.
As a racer you know how much easier it is to set-up a car when you are not restricted by such things as pick-up location or wheel-base.(When they no longer required stock wheel-base is when, to me, the cars really became thingis. NASCAR was the first to do that, when too many of the new cars were illegal under their rules, so they just butchered the rules. I cannot figure out why, instead of simply allowing shorter wheelbase cars, they forced Ford to lengthen its wheelbase and make fake sheetmetal to fit it?)
After 1981 what were then called tube frames were allowed and the rules became more lax and radical as the years went by.
I wonder what year doors were no longer required and I think you said when you first started more stock sheetmetal was still required.
From a mechanics point of view, who were among the loudest wishing for tube frames, not having to meet produciton standards is a God send but then no one has forced them to do what they are doing.
I got the SCCA blurb from an old Autoweek in which a SCCA official said just what I wrote. I found that by accident but if I see it again i will quote more of it.
Bob

[Cheyne]

When my Olds Cutlass was built (a rebody from a Camaro) the rules required the use of a stock roof and windshield. To this day I still have a stock Olds Cutlass roof (with the GM Part # sticker) but I have replaced the windshield with lexan.

To me a race car is nothing more than a tool to do a job. I have no problems chopping up a car or cutting off a body to put a new one on. I have a friend with a Riley & Scott Camaro that he is torn if he should put a new Vette body on it. It will require him to take off the role cage and make some other changes. Well the car has some history and he isn't sure weither to do it or not. If it were me I would already be done.

You are right Bob, I also don't want to fight the short comings of a mfg's car when it comes to pick up points or wheelbase. If you are going racing then you should be able to do it right.

Cheyne