CAM classing a truck

In reply to rslifkin:

1:1 makes sense.

With an overall height of 67.5" and a track width of 58.5" The '97-'01 5.0, AWD Exploder has a long way to go. Hmph.

What do you call a person that isn't as advanced as it should be? Retarded.

There's your problem. Is someone with a disability less of a human than you because you're "more advanced"(your words not mine)? No, but you just labeled them as such.

It's very clear who is more advanced, and here's a clue. It's not you.

It looks like the o.e. tire size is either 235/75R15 or 255/70R16 so there's quite a bit of height that can be lost there... just thinking out loud.

This thread has some nice contrast going.

The_Jed wrote: In reply to rslifkin: 1:1 makes sense. With an overall height of 67.5" and a track width of 58.5" The '97-'01 5.0, AWD Exploder has a long way to go. Hmph.

I've had the same thought about my Jeep. Even with the roof rack removed to cut the height, I'd need much shorter tires, possibly lower suspension and several inches of wheel spacer to get it under 1:1... Height without the roof rack is spec-ed at just under 65", mine is probably about 65.5" with the current tires and suspension. Stock track width averages to 58.65" and with my current wheels / tires it's at 60.4". So I've still got a good 5 inches to make up somewhere...

The_Jed wrote: It looks like the o.e. tire size is either 235/75R15 or 255/70R16 so there's quite a bit of height that can be lost there... just thinking out loud.

Smaller tires, crank the torsion bars down in the front (or replace with coilovers) and add blocks to the rear and you might get there.

In reply to patgizz:

It's simple. The rules are currently written incorrectly. Either one instance of the 'or/and trucks' should not exist, or both of the 'or/and trucks' should have been placed before the seating requirements. Regardless, the only way to get an accurate interpretation of the intended ruling, and get it officially corrected, is to submit a request for clarification to the SCCA.

.

In reply to Dietcoke:

You just used the word "it" to refer to another human being as an inanimate object, and compared measuring the value of an inanimate object to [measuring the 'value' of] a person by confusing multiple definitions of the word "advanced".

Congratulations...By your own convoluted definition, you just failed your own test.

STM317 wrote:

The_Jed wrote: It looks like the o.e. tire size is either 235/75R15 or 255/70R16 so there's quite a bit of height that can be lost there... just thinking out loud.

Smaller tires, crank the torsion bars down in the front (or replace with coilovers) and add blocks to the rear and you might get there.

I crunched some numbers during my lunch break tonight. It looks like I can install some 9" wide wheels with the same backspacing as the o.e. 16x7 wheels, wrap the 17x9's in 255/40R17's and lower the truck 2.5" and I should arrive at 65" track width and 65" height, iirc.

STM317 wrote: In reply to Dietcoke: Not everything is about winning. The vast majority of autocrossers are out there to have fun. Who cares what type of vehicle they're doing it in? Are trucks the ideal platform for performance driving? Absolutely not. Is it a blast to see other's faces as you drive your inferior truck to a time similar to more expensive, sportier cars? Hell yes.

You've nailed my point for me, exactly. it doesn't matter what you're driving (or anyone else in your class).

Someone who had the same question on another forum wrote the SEB and got a response in one day.

Trucks that are old enough and meet eligible weight are in CAMT, regardless of how many seats or what style cab they have.

So there you have it.