CSCC Rule Proposals



Cascade will be forwarding 2 proposals to the Steward.

The first is to allow the CSM ballast to be moved to the footwell so that some of our "trimmer" drivers can put a passenger seat back in for noon rides at Doernbecher. I can't say that I've ever had to "artificially" ballast a car, but I'd really like to encourage driver to help at Doernbecher and I can dream of someday, maybe.....

The second is to allow the installation of aftermarket brake calipers of the same size & number of pistons and the same or less contact area. This has come up since pads for a few of our older production race cars are getting really hard to come by.

I'm putting this out so that discussion can start on these before time gets short.

Margie Burgesser
Grp 1 # 49 & CSCC Asst. C Board

Could you please provide more information on the production cars that would be in need of this rule change.

Thank you

Jon Bonforte
G2 #99
I had hoped that the brake rule would have passed, but thats the nice thing about ICSCC. The problem is simply lack of availability of a suitable pad for some of the older cars, and needing to keep cost's down. Hawk no longer makes pads for the PL510 and a bunch of other cars. OEM organics are available, but I won't take the car out on track with them on it. Can't afford to redo the car to the next group which allows brake improvements in addition to other areas and have someone to race against. There are other cars heading this way in the parts catagory so be prepared.

I was not looking for any advantage or way of putting larger brakes under the car. In fact, the submission kept everything equal, just made parts available.

I'll do something but not race on anything dangerous. See you G-Prod folks on track next year!!
That rule didn't pass? I wonder why... didn't seem like anyone would get a performance advantage out of it (and I can't think why else someone wouldn't vote for it).
Are you talking about the one labeled:
31 110 CSCC 1402.F.7 (C NEW)

I was present. IRDC voted no.
I have no great memory of the discussion.

But offhand, I'd suggest that this is an
example that it is very wise to discuss
these proposals on this forum, well before
the voting night.
So everyone can hear the Pros and the Cons.
I tend to think everyone is concerned about
passing something that might have far broader
implications than it first appears.
Also a good idea to have a representative
show up at the club votes that have the
largest body of drivers (i.e. IRDC,SCCBC,
CSCC & BMW) to explain goals and justification.

YMMV - better luck next year.
Hi Lee, enjoyed your company at the Banquet.

I guess I ain't a good nuff sales-man!! We did put it out there but didn't get much response so I figured there was little or no confusion.

I do have a plan, a safe one and one that does use the original brakes.

So I'll be out there!!

Thanks Also to Steve for your thoughts!
It did not pass at IRDC because of the words "after market". Does this mean Brembos and Wilwoods, yes, I guess it could, and this is in fact a change in production car preparation rules. It probably would have passed if it had not used the wording "after market" and instead used the term "other model calipers of the same manufacturer".
That's silly. In addition to "aftermarket," the proposal was very specific about the same number/size of pistons, as well as pads that have the same or smaller contact area. IOW, sure, you could run Brembo or Wilwood, but what advantage would you get out of it? "Aftermarket" does not always equal "superior to OEM."
That is exactly right Steve, Thanks!

I suppose if I had done a lot of research and come up with aluminum calipers or something it would make a difference. They don't so it is a mute point.

We all (hopefully) don't run OEM pads. That is what started all of this. Smaller area pad and piston equal less effective braking force. What would really be gained on using aluminum calipers anyway? An ounce or two. These older cars in production are not that fast compared to the newer ones: I have to stay out of the way of the Miatas!!

Anyway. Done deal and I am moving on to another solution. Just have to be aware of the future and how obsolete parts are on the horizon for other makes/models and if we want to continue to offer the type of racing we do "bring it and we'll find a competative class for you to race in" we need to be willing to change.
What advantage would you get out of it? Are you really asking?

There are vast "silly" differences in heat protection, dissipation, caliper flex, etc. That doesn't even address the "silly" advantages available in weight, and less "unsprung" weight is even more precious. Maybe they are also easier to service, quicker to change pads, and are more durable. That "silly" amount of time potentially comes out of your prep time, possibly on raceday - giving you a preparation advantage over your stock brake competitors. Heck, reliability and fade resistance might just be the difference between finishing and DNF'ing because they failed on the last lap .... but I digress.

It could have measurable effects on the balance of competition in these classes - that's why things like this have to be written carefully. Do the people who don't currently have brake problems then have to upgrade to lighter, better insulated, better heat dissipating brakes with the same number of calipers and the same or smaller pads to stay even? Could that money and time go to preparing some other portion of the car or even towards just entering races?

It is true that "aftermarket" doesn't mean superior - but this is racing, right? Why wouldn't you put the best "LEGALLY ALLOWABLE" caliper that you could afford on the car? Does "affordable" mean the same thing to all competitors?

Do I really have to say it?


Mr Boggs had it exactly right. This rule left way too much open when we discussed it the IRDC rules meeting. A more tightly restricted and defined rule, or one that had the overwhelming support of the production classes and a representitive that would have been willing to stand up and sell us on the idea might well have gotten a different result.

I encourage everyone who cares about Conference and our rule structure to think about what they would like to see in the future and start writing new rules NOW. Take your prospective rule and go out and build concensus with the groups that it effects over the course of the year. Post it on the website and help get Wes's post count over 2000. Refine it when those concerned point out errors, loopholes, and inconsistencies and bring a nice refined and popularly supported rule to next years rule meeting. It's pretty likely to pass. You will have made a bunch of new friends and helped make Conference better at the same time.
Yes Rick I understand all of the advantages of having aluminum everything on a race car, from the calipers to hubs to body structure and suspension components. Lighter weight equals faster times.

But that is not what this was about. It was about being able to get something that would be safe. Simple, straight-forward.

Your point is also understood about needing to sell the idea and having this website and forum to present information is a tremendous asset of ICSCC. I agree I did not sell this, but honestly did not think it needed too much convincing. Mainly because I do not have one of the faster cars out there and most of the cars 30 or 40 years old running in Production are not going to be fast (Mr. Olsen that durned MG the exception of course).

Again, no worries. I have a potential solution (not an inexpensive one though).

I agree we ALL need to look at our cars and see what will not be available in the future and start finding and affordable solution now, wording a rule change properly (you should have seen my first one... Thanks George and Margie for making me look smarter than I am!!!)and then presenting it via all forums to sell it to the masses

I do want to say venomnously I do appreciate ICSCC's approach. It can't be beat!!!!!!
Well, Rick, with Dick Boggs' wording you would have the option of running larger calipers and with more pistons. Now you have both potentially better heat dissipation AND better braking. As for the prep time issue, I can tell you I've run both super-fancy calipers on my current car and OEM calipers on my earlier Production car, and the amount of time I save when changing pads (for example) is all of about 3 minutes.

The concern I have with your logic is you're rejecting a rule based on what you SPECULATE would be POTENTIAL performance benefits, benefits that would be measured (if they existed at all) in comparatively tiny fractions.

As for the "affordable" issue, all you're really doing is shifting the costs to people with older cars that have been running in Conference for a number of years. Maybe we should do something to persuade really old cars to run with SOVREN or VSCCA so that this kind of issue doesn't come up ...? (He said, tongue mostly in cheek.)

Once upon a time (in the last year) I didn't think that re-wording the Yellow Flag rules to say "single file" instead of "no passing" would be a big deal. The change was to eliminate the confusion drivers have about what passing, and a completed pass is, but alas, although the ease of this change seemed (seems) obvious to me (and was within the current FIA standards and practices per P&P) the thought of any wording change in the "Rules of the Road" had apparently induced a paranoia as some drivers decided that there was an officials' conspiracy afoot.

Reading the existing "Pace Car Procedures" may have brought the concept of dropping into single file in a Yellow flag zone more into focus for them.

So we try again, when we are enabled to attend those kinds of meetings.

Also, how many drivers, do you figure, perhaps knowing of their own clubs changes, but not of others, actually sit down with the all of the proposed changes and analyze them for their individual merit? And of those, how many just minutes before they sit down in their meeting to vote.

It's been my observation that if a reg has not been studied enough to be understood, any proposals for change that may arise will probably be voted down. And unfortunately perhaps, by those that may not even have a stake in the outcome.
Ken, I think you are right when you asked how many people sit down right before they vote to understand a lot of the proposals. Most of them likely when they are drinking their beer and eating pizza (Not me,, I actually read them from them Memo, but admitedly was eating pizza and drinking beer when I voted.

As for the "simpleness" of a rule, I got your idea right off and didn't need any thought process to figure it out. But then again, I am just a dumb old Okie!!

Anyway. Didn't mean to sir up a snake-den. Just going to concentrate on getting the car ready for next year!!

Happy Turkey Day to ya'all!
It is exactly for situations like this that the "fractured" nature of multiple-clubs-within-a-club that is Conference becomes a problem. The forum would be a great place to thrash out issues like this, but I'm under the impression that only a small number of Conference drivers/workers are members and, of course, it's an even smaller number who actually use it regularly.
Actually, if you sit in on the "Contest Board" (did I get the name right this time, Wes?) meeting during the convention weekend you will find that some pre-thought does go into most votes cast.

On several occasions the representatives from various clubs "abstained" from voting. Their members did not have a 'vested interest' in the out come due to lack of cars, etc. In this case, the number of votes required for pass/no pass were adjusted accordingly.

Point being.... clubs don't appear to be arbitrarily casting NO votes cause they don't know what it means.
If the concern is that Hawk and/or, other companys have stopped making pads for a particular vehicle there is a very easy solution. Porterfeild Brakes in Cal. will make racing pads for any car; all you have to do in some cases is send them some old pads so that they can use the backing plates.

You can order direct or easier yet, you can order from Andy at Armadillo Racing.

I have used Porterfeild pads in several race cars and they are as good or better then anything else on the market.
In ancient times when the messenger came with news of a defeat, they usually killed the messenger.

As I have said many times you as drivers can propose your own rules and all drivers get to vote on the rule unless it is an E-board item only and then you have a vote through your e-board representative. It is a democratic process that requires participation. Those that vote, vote for those that don't.

Rewrite the rule and re-submit it next year and lobby for your rule with an explantion to representatives of other clubs.

I know (knew) Andy from my days as a Cal Club member in ancient past and they do in fact have the ones I need. I've been talking to them for a couple of months now on some other business and I am adding Porterfield to my product line.

He has a market on custom made brakes because he is willing to make small runs.

I have one other company I am negotiating with so the outcome will be positive either way.

Point being that I probably will not resubmit this next year because my two 510's will eventually be used for 2nd/3rd car or other purpose after I get one of my two other cars built (SPU and GT1/SPO).

I want to thank everyone for their input on all this and please keep open minds for the future.

BTW: I did not do anything to our messenger, he is still alive and well.
No worries about open mindedness. It is my humble opinion that the rule you proposed was voted down because people were left in the position of saying "how could this probably well meaning rule be abused in ways that it's author didn't think of". I think I can easily speak for those present when I say that none of us wants to make it harder for you to come out. As a matter of fact, I would say that most of those present are very interested in making your experience better and easier! The people who take time out of their busy schedules to show up for meetings are the hard core guys and gals who love racing and try to make Conference the best place for that they can.

Rules are something that we all have to live by, and for that reason they should be well crafted, fair, and as free from "interpretation" as possible. Those assembled at the meeting just thought the rule left room for possible future dispute, so it didn't pass. I'm sure those same people would pass a well written and unambiguous rule that doesn't lead to someone else feeling shotchanged. Please don't view this as a personal defeat - I'm not sure anyone even knew who wrote it. If I can do something to help you get your car on track, feel free to contact me personally!

I agree with Steve - although there is a definite group that stays active here on the forum, I still think it is a tiny minority of licensed drivers as a whole. I think it is getting better all the time, and we should do our best to get as many people participating as possible. It is probably the best way available to such a diverse and geograpically scattered organization such as ours.

I'm out of town visiting my father for Thanksgiving so first of all, I hope everyone had a happy turkey day. Secondly, after reading back over this thread it starts to look almost adversarial - especially with Steve. Nothing could be further from the truth. While we seem to disagree on a couple of topics here, we have been racing against each other for several years now and I have nothing but respect for him. I think the key to a forum like this is for friends like Steve and I to be able to champion different viewpoints and at the end of the day still be friends.

Hey, Steve - you may be wrong but I'm still your friend. ;-)