Production Car rule change


"The Okie"
Who ever submitted the rule change for production cars to be able to run headers please explain the reasoning behind it.
Hey Kyle,

You might want to talk Colin Koehler. I think he's trying to increase the count of group 2, and help out a friend that drives the 944. I may be wrong but I'm sure that Colin can clean up the confusion since he is the author of the header and wheel rule.

My point is that rule changes submitted need driver support. Not gonna happen unless it is explained to all. Putting your reasons out here is one of the best ways.
I don't think the rationale/explanation behind a rule change proposal is allowed on the rule change submission document.

I have sometimes wondered WHY myself and if there was a seperate section per rule change proposal for rationale/explanation it might make it easier/simpler for the drivers to vote yea/nay as it could help define the intent/reason behind the rule change.

Just my lowly .02 worth.
There is not a place for an explanation. I agree that maybe there should be, and if a rule change is required next year one should be submitted. I had the same situation with a rule change I submitted. Took 2 years to get it passed and a lot of explaining.

Meanwhile, I HIGHLY suggest someone explain the rationale behind this proposal or it may not get passed.
Did you know that when you drive a qualifying session that we don't know if you are qualifying the car or yourself?

~Derail~ Carrying on...

I agree that there are some rules that should be fully explained before they are expected to recieve popular approval. Others may reveal too much and get squashed ruining somebody's whole agenda, but that's the system that the drivers want.
Did you know that when you drive a qualifying session that we don't know if you are qualifying the car or yourself?.....

SHOULD be qualifying the car. If you have to take another car in to 'that' race then, back of the grid for you as the 'car' was not qualified.

I would have assumed "all" race cars have the option of running custom made headers?? No? Sports Racers and Formula cars DO (that's my main world).

Okay they cost more then a production factory header (in most cases). But we aren't talking mega dollars here.
Last edited:
Most sports racers and formula cars can't help but run custom headers, as the motor position or orientation is rarely remotely close to the vehicle they came out of.. You'll find that "headers" for production cars is a big business and can cost a pretty penny!
Production rules are there to keep vehicles close to original as possible with the purpose to keeps costs reasonable and limit "competitive advantages" one car may have over another. SCCA "Production" rules converts to ICSCC "Improved Production" class. It goes back to the question of where does it stop? First headers, then larger carb(s)/injectors, remapped ECM's, camshafts, pistons.... Might as well run _IP.
Remember stock car racing?

When all it took was a little know how, and guts?
Production class.jpg

Then more sponsors showed up
RPetty and BAllison.jpg

And lotsa more money.
Ken I'm not sure the point you're trying to make but it appears that you're comparing NASCAR to ICSCC Conf. Production. It seems like your illustrating the benefits of change.

Here I go!

NASCAR: needs money... Through increase in popularity of viewership, the series prospers. The changes, even though current cars don't resemble modern street cars, has allowed NASCAR to achieve it's primary goal. Growth and profit. Also, the cars represented in NASCAR in their stock form would have CAUSED the series to die. Has anybody seen the modern Impala or is excited to see a 2011 Toyota Camry Hybrid go racing?... I'm not. The cars produced by the manufacturers have changed in a way that is not concurrent to the goals of NASCAR thus having a tubeframe spec car has allowed the series to transition into something that has become the 2nd most popular sport in America behind the NFL with over 75 million US viewers and another 75million viewers world wide. That's called, winning.

ICSCC Production: needs money... However, there is no corporate sponsorship, no TV time, no viewership. The money only, ONLY exists from entries. Unlike NASCAR, OEMS are still making production cars that are congruent to a Prod class and the OEM's on many of their cars have evolved BEYOND the rules of the Production class which are 55 years old. An aftermarket header ISN'T rules-creep... it's reality creep. The reality is that it's not cost productive in a racing sense to be protecting rules that only serve those who want to race cars from the 1960's. Or, perhaps we should just change the name of Production to "Vintage" since the rules don't apply to your modern automotive enthusiast.

In 2001 a little movie came out that radically, RADICALLY changed the enthusiast market. That would be Fast and the Furious. Since 2001 the "tuner" market has become a multi-billion dollar empire and tuners are everywhere. Now tuners are just your modern day entry-level enthusiast. As some point these tuners, will autocross, drag race, run track days and eventually do schools and then racing. The last 2 times I instructed this year I saw cars with turbos, swaps, headers, mods, and I even saw a 1986 Toyota Corolla (AE86) with an S2000 F20C engine swap in it. The future of Conference, is the 16-22 year old who's putting Headers on his daily driver right now, not the 65 year old man restoring a 1972 Datsun in his farmhouse.

Has anyone in Conference EVER been to a NOPI or HIN show? ANYONE? Do you even know what it is? We should realize that those kids will eventually be (need to be) our feeder demographic, not their grandparents. This also is a much bigger argument for how we market our Conference as well but that's for another thread.

I meet an "enthusiast" every couple of weeks that asks me about how to get into racing. Why? Because I'm young, I know how to use social media, I'm on the enthusiast forum boards and I'm constantly advocating to these tuners to get out to a track day, a school, an autocross, and they are. I've been witness to massive attrition over the short time I've been racing (2004). People leaving because of cost, lack of competition and "other". Thus my advice to maximize a newcomers addiction without it destroying his/her life is this:

"Come out to the events, volunteer, or just watch the races. Look at what groups have large fields, competitive classes and then go talk to the drivers about what they spend to do this. Some classes might look affordable but the drivers are spending 40k to do it while other racers are enjoy loads of competition by spending 1/4th of that."

Do you think any newcomer is going to look at someone racing by themselves in EP or FP and think... "oh wow, I want to go do that!" I don't think so.

While the "rules-creep" argument hits home with a few members, remember that adaptation is the only way anything survives over time.

And let me take a moment to post a picture to prove my point as well Ken.

Here's the future of Conference Production:


And more fun with Pictures... Here's an OEM S2000 manifold and an OEM Type R manifold

Sure looks like headers to me!

Minds open... The point is that Stock Car racing WAS production class racing, and still is at the local 'home' tracks, but became the monster that it is over time and the evolution its own regulation. That regulation may, or may not, have occured due to the member drivers, but there it is.

They didn't just go out to Daytona Beach and say, "Okay, we're a professional series." They went out to race, and the guts, glory and sportsmanship got lost in the mix with image, spectacle and sponsorship as the 'progress' of technology became more affordable.

A direct comparison to NASCAR and ICSCC? Degrading ICSCC? Dont be ridiculous. That's nearly offensive.

To it's credit, ICSCC has made the 'C' (club) classes to stay focused on the true 'weekend warrior' club racers, due to those car classing, and related regulations following SCCA so closely for so long.

I love our great sport of auto racing, in most all of its forms, and support that which pleases me. The Conference has pleased me to volunteer many seasons of my time and services because of it's true sportsmanship quality of the racing within.

I care less about what size your header is, than I do about being a part of the whole to make our events operate more safely, and efficiently.

I think that EP would be pretty cool, but then everybody wants to go faster, don't they.
Last edited:
Ummmmm.... I'd say let's keep Production classes real inexpensive, close to stock and do any modifications under our Improved Production classes- dont mix them.
but then everybody wants to go faster, don't they.

It depends (but I guess we can answer every question with that eh?).

I think there's drivers in Conference that aren't interested in going faster, legitimately not interested in going faster. I'm one of them. I like winning however which has required me to go faster. So I only like going faster as a by-product. I'm not selling my CRX and buying an M3 anytime soon however.

I've struggled and struggled to understand the mentality of a race car driver who isn't trying to win but now I get it, or get it enough to not ponder it any further. But what I still don't understand but wish to, honestly wish to, is how a race car driver wants to be the only person in their class, who only wants to race themselves.

There's no right or wrong here, it's all about fun but just about every driver in Production (group 2 prod) is racing themselves.

Linda only got to race another car in class once this year out of 5 entries... ONCE! Same with Jon Bonforte, ran 7 races, only raced another car in-class once!
Kyle didn't get to race anyone in class, neither did Bill Hill or Bill Murray.

You know how all this makes me feel as a driver, as a conference member? I feel like we're abandoning people, it feels like neglect. I tried though and I'm happy with that, at least now I can refocus my efforts on my own little pond and try to grow the sandbox I play in.
Ummmmm.... I'd say let's keep Production classes real inexpensive, close to stock and do any modifications under our Improved Production classes- dont mix them.

So get rid of porting, ECU tuning, don't allow fuel cell, don't allow aftermarket intake, don't allow open exhaust... That'd be real inexpensive.

btw Kyle, I don't believe have anything to worry about.

And just for fun, more Production cars with aftermarket style headers!

JDM Type R
E90 M3
E34 M5
E60 M5 (shorties)
Current Toyota Tundra (shorties)
LS7 Corvette Z06 (shorties)
Nissan 370Z
Infiniti G37
SVT Focus
Porsche 944
Porsche 928 S4/GTS
2.4L n/a volvo 5cyl in the S70/V70/850
Last edited:
I do identify, Colin.

In the mid '80's I ran SOLO II auto cross in E-Stock class. Won a regional championship in my '72 Rx2 (wish I still had it, sometimes) that was stock on stock, same shocks that came with the car when I purchased it (old), and whatever tires that I could get from the Tire Factory's throw away pile. The door paint didn't even match. But we were very fast together.

Then this guy came along with a VW Rabbit, same class, but did not lift a rear wheel, even at the 'hairpin' cones. How was that possible when it was illegal to put a rear bar on the car? Shocks were 'open'. You could push down on the car, and it pushed back even harder. Add to that the excellent talent of the driver as due credit. With his wife running the car in ESL (Lady's)

~1-2 seconds faster, though? On a course that usually takes under a minute?

Rules are rules, they told me. The second season they put slicks on the car, and he would run C-Modified Stock, and his wife pulled out of the Lady's class into ES. And she was an excellent driver too. So I was out gunned, but perhaps only on budget. I'd never know.

I couldn't afford to compete with that. I was sponsored by back pocket, they had "Pyrotech" sponsorship. I could still drive my car to an event. They had to trailer theirs. E-Stock? Phooey! I got tired of second place.

I believe that every 'racer' wants to go faster. That's why they involve themselves in the sport. And I believe that most, will push the envelope of the regulations so that they might make the car of their choice as fast as their budget will allow. And some will go beyond that, to the point of pushing for rule changes that will accommodate those desires without moving the car into a 'faster' class/group.

OEM vs. aftermarket. Stock vs. Improved. Those SHOULD be pretty self evident descriptions, but...
Last edited:
I do identify, Colin.

I believe that every 'racer' wants to go faster. That's why they involve themselves in the sport. And I believe that most, will push the envelope of the regulations so that they might make the car of their choice as fast as their budget will allow. And some will go beyond that, to the point of pushing for rule changes that will accommodate those desires without moving the car into a 'faster' class/group.

OEM vs. aftermarket. Stock vs. Improved. Those SHOULD be pretty self evident descriptions, but...

Your experience, while valid, stems from different circumstances and I feel your viewpoint is through glasses of a different shade. The G2 Prod racers, aren't pushing the envelope, they aren't trying to go faster, they are just racing by themselves and here in Conference they have a right to support that continued experience. That is why Conference kicks ass and I support their decision even though I don't agree.

Here was an opportunity to add competition and it was denied. Also, back when G2 Prod was very popular and competitive, several racers were extrude honing their manifolds which may or may not have been legal depending on your interpretation of the rules but this was LESS cost effective than buying a header. A simple rule change would have saved money and decreased cheating. However, on principle, it's not always best to change a rule because of cheating, the best thing to do is just stop the cheating.... but take that example for what it is.

This is not the case of drivers pushing the limits so far that they are now seeking a rule change to push it further. This is the case of several classes dying a slow death and a cheap, easy and affordable change allows great potential to add competition and entries to reinvigorate the classes, at least it did.

Ken, we have to argue on the grounds of what's happening in this specific situation. It doesn't appear that we're going to see eye to eye.

Kyle wanted his explanation. I think my replies should be sufficient enough to satisfy his curiosity. In a few years it won't matter anyway if the trend continues. It will all become a moot point.

Here's your Production car trend in Group 2:

And before we say... "well many of the Prod cars moved into ITX or H4"... That's not true either. H4 had a boom for only a couple years then quickly died as it did in NASA but stayed around because it meant that all the G5 Honda's didn't have to mess around with manifolds anymore. As for ITX, several of those cars were already stuck in G1 like the Neon's, the 325e's, and the Nissan 240sx... Thus the trends reflected in the Prod numbers are rather self evident.
Shaded, indeed.

I don't recall there being an arguement. I believe that we're on two different angles of perception in regards to the thread.

Mine, as Kyle just stated, has to do with "OEM Stock is OEM Stock, and Aftermarket/fabricated Improved is Improved.

So should Alphabet-Production classes be OEM Stock? It's not like there isn't enough "Improved" Touring/Production classes available for those with the budget to build their production "based" cars to.