PDA

View Full Version : Wheel diameter rule change Poll



Pages : [1] 2

Jake
07-17-2003, 10:14 AM
Because 14x7's and 13x7's (even heavy ones) are becoming harder to find and more expensive, because final drive is open anyway, because running 16's and 17's on underpowered cars isn't a competitive advantage (just looks cool), because it cars to move from ITA to ITB without a wheel sale, because it will enable Spec Miata guys to run in ITA (great for 2 driver cars), because lightweight 15's are a dime a dozen (well actually $400/4)...

Who would support a change to allow IT cars to use any diameter wheel, as long as it was 7" wide or less?

Who cares enough that they would write a letter to the CB?

Geezer
07-17-2003, 11:17 AM
Since I already run 15x7 wheels on my Honda Challenge car I'd have no problem with it. I'd be able to cross over and run IT events without spending a couple of grand on new wheels and tires.

It might also help folks just starting out, who could save 50-75% on starting their wheel inventory.

I'd bet, though, that as long as someone is still making 14x7s the CB won't consider it a necessary change.

I'd be willing to write a letter anyway, just to see if I could get a prized FasTrack Turndown.

------------------
1988 CRX Si
ECHC H4 #38

924Guy
07-17-2003, 12:03 PM
I'd certainly support it - though I'm sure the CompBoard wouldn't be too happy to see another 3-pg letter from me so soon again, so I'll leave the missive up to someone else... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com

Banzai240
07-17-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by 924Guy:
so I'll leave the missive up to someone else... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

DON'T leave it up to "someone else"... One letter with an good idea doesn't carry as much weight as MANY letters with the same good idea...

Darin

Geo
07-17-2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
DON'T leave it up to "someone else"... One letter with an good idea doesn't carry as much weight as MANY letters with the same good idea...

I agree with Darin. Besides, I'll support it within the ITAC. At some point the rest of the group will have to give in to my nagging. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif I think Darin has become open to this subject after doing a bit of research. I will be writing my own letter with some research on availability and cost as well.

Please write.

Oh, and remember, this doesn't even affect me. My car already can use 15" and 16" wheels.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Fleetcare
07-17-2003, 06:35 PM
15" would be nice

timrogers
07-17-2003, 07:08 PM
I'm all for allowing open wheel sizes, as newer cars have larger wheels in general.
This would help cars with gearing issues as well.



------------------

Joe Harlan
07-17-2003, 07:11 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> I think Darin has become open to this subject after doing a bit of research </font>

Haha Research......."Joe what do you think?"

Did he get an ear full......The larger wheel & tire is gonna be a push in most cases. The benefits are alot of pro series are using 15 and 17" stuff so there are a lot of good used tires in the system. Wheels become more available for a reasonable price. So on and so on. The current trends in automotive performance are all going this way and it won't be long before the tire guys just flat won't want to make tires for us. I think Hoosier is no longer making a 60 series 14 for the Z so everybody is on 50's which don't fit real well...ane we have been having trouble getting 14" goodyears.....

This is a change that's time has come. It is also self policing by our fender rules so if limited to 7 or 7.5 max then flares should never be an issue.

timrogers
07-17-2003, 07:35 PM
Hmmm, what if the rule on tire size was written that as new cars with larger stock wheel sizes are admitted into a class, that car's wheel size becomes the new maximum?
So, if we ever get a car that comes with 17" wheels admitted to ITS, then all ITS cars can run 17" wheels...
Its sort of a rules creep issue, but at least it is a one time only rules change.

Tim Rogers
ITS NX2000 under construction

TypeSH
07-17-2003, 07:57 PM
I'm all for any diameter wheel, but for the opposite reason as most of you. The Prelude has a required 16" wheel and with a 225/50/16 the overall tire diameter is almost an inch taller than stock. Sure this can be cured by a final drive but that will cost me about $1700. A 15" wheel would allow me to stick with my current final drive and spend $60 less per set of tires!!

------------------
David Rierson
#53 Honda Prelude
Texas Region

[This message has been edited by TypeSH (edited July 17, 2003).]

Geo
07-17-2003, 08:10 PM
Everyone....

Please write to the CB. I think the CB and most of the ITAC does not know just how big an issue this is. Some think this will add to the costs, but in reality, for most people this will significantly reduce costs. And, as Joe stated, larger wheels are a push at best.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Jake
07-17-2003, 08:44 PM
My computer must be broken - everyone here seems to agree. Something must be wrong! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif Cool guys, lets bombard them with letters!!!!

ITANorm
07-17-2003, 09:19 PM
OK, Jake, you want somebody to disagree???


Find somebody else. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Knestis
07-17-2003, 10:15 PM
At tirerack.com, as of today - 4x100 bolt pattern (Honda, VW, et al.)...

14" diameter - two options, both 6" wide, both Borbets, both $75 each.

15" diameter - 29 options; 6, 6.5, and 7" wide, ranging in price from $99 (seven options) to $299 each, mean cost is $143.

However, the idea of open wheel diameters is completely contrary to the intent of IT. And I like it anyway... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

Geo
07-17-2003, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
However, the idea of open wheel diameters is completely contrary to the intent of IT.

So are coilovers. So are spherical bearings. Hell, you could even argue that adjustable dampers are contrary to the intent of IT. I'm sure there are plenty of other things that could be argued.

Actually, I'd have to ask why it's contrary. I think it actually fits "useful and necessary to construct a safe race car" as well as "limited modifications, suitable for racing competition."


Originally posted by Knestis:
And I like it anyway...

http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Please write. This is my crusade. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited July 17, 2003).]

Banzai240
07-17-2003, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Oh, and remember, this doesn't even affect me. My car already can use 15" and 16" wheels.

Mine either... I get to use both 15" or 16" as well...

Of course, if 17's were available... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Banzai240
07-17-2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by TypeSH:
... with a 225/50/16 the overall tire diameter is almost an inch taller than stock.

You might want to go to the Tire Rack and check out the selection of Kuhmos available... You and I are currently running the same size and I just looked... there are a few other options there that would fit nicely...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

07-18-2003, 01:27 AM
because I have to run 13's my hoosiers cost me $756 mounted, 15's are $100 less. Ill write.... but... NO LESS THAN 9 POUNDS EACH.

------------------
Daryl Brightwell
ITA RX7 #11
NORPAC
ITA RX7 #77
SOPAC

[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited July 18, 2003).]

Knestis
07-18-2003, 08:47 AM
Excellent point, Daryl. It could probably be argued that 9# is too light in fact...

K

Karl Bocchieri
07-18-2003, 10:28 AM
Prelude came with 15" and 16" wheels
BMW 325's came with 15" and 16" wheels
944's came with 15" and 16" wheels
My RX-7 came with 15" and 16" wheels,...yet Im the only one that dosen't get to use them? And don't give me that crap about being only an option package. I am allowed to use the spoilers, lightweight rotors, and rear end ratio from that package but not the rims? (The 16" are optional on BMW's)
This is why people wonder whats going to happen with CA, arbitrary, unequal application of rules with no explination.

eh_tony!!!
07-18-2003, 10:49 AM
Even though I can use 13's or 14's, I still use the 13's for the gearing effects.

However, I do think this is a change who's time has come.

********* One question .. I assume the only proposal on the table is wheel DIAMETER.. I saw some notes about allowing 14x7's and 13x7's (Jake), and 7.5's later...

Any change in width is something that I could NOT support.

924Guy
07-18-2003, 10:59 AM
And 924's (ITA) came with 16's... :b

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com

Joe Harlan
07-18-2003, 11:05 AM
Eh-Tony,

I mentioned the .5 sizes because a lot of aftermarket wheel makers are only going up in .5 sizes. The problem with getting all fixated on wheel widths is the tires available are what dictate the wheel width along with the fender restriction... fixed rim width was fine when everybody was able to get 60 series tires but it looks like tire makers are trending away from them 50's 55's 45's all require different stuff.

tderonne
07-18-2003, 12:06 PM
Couple quick thoughts.
On diameter. What next? 14x7 and big tires barely fit on a CRX, are they going to be asking for flared fenders next? Just one thought that pops to mind.

On width. I'm still waiting for the ITB Mustang crowd to ask for the wheels that the car came with, 15x7. Allow only the OEM 15x7 and any aftermarket 15x6 if you like. There are so many other references in the GCR to stuff that isn't allowed unless it came that way, why not 7" wide wheels, or whatever width wheels for cars that came with them? (Actually we discussed this once before in a different thread, I don't think there were any cars that it would apply to except the Mustang, at least in cars that are currently classed in IT.)

[This message has been edited by tderonne (edited July 18, 2003).]

ITA_CRX
07-18-2003, 01:20 PM
I don't see a need for allowing larger diameter wheels.

You don't have to run a 7 inch rim.

Running the larger diameter rim may help handling on the cars with smaller rims. (Hey, my CRX could be faster, why don't I want this?)

As far as final drive, I don't think the overall dimensions of the tire are that much different to alter the gearing any significant amount. From Hoosier's website, 14s have a 23 inch diameter and 15s are 23 or 24 inches. 16s and 17s are 26.6 inches in diameter.

Jamie

Banzai240
07-18-2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by ITA_CRX:
From Hoosier's website, 14s have a 23 inch diameter and 15s are 23 or 24 inches. 16s and 17s are 26.6 inches in diameter.

Jamie,
You might want to look at those dimensions again... Perhaps also look at what Kuhmo is offering...

The 225-50ZR16 BFGs on my car are 25" in diameter, and a 245-40ZR17 is 24.5".

The whole purpose of going to larger diameter WHEELS, is to shorten the sidewall WITHOUT altering the overall diameter of the tire... Moving from 15" wheels to 16" wheels or even from 13" to 15" should have NO or little effect on gear ratios if the proper tire is selected...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

<Edited due to FAT Fingers!! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif>

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 18, 2003).]

Geo
07-18-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
The whole purpose of going to larger diameter WHEELS, is to shorten the sidewall WITHOUT altering the overall diameter of the tire...

Actually, in the context of any rule proposal, we want to open up the availability of wheels. I wouldn't push this if 13x7 and 14x7 wheels were readily available like they were when IT was created. But now they are truly a specialty item and priced accordingly. I would argue that is not within the philosophy of IT.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Banzai240
07-18-2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Actually, in the context of any rule proposal, we want to open up the availability of wheels.

I know that... I was referring to the technical aspects of increasing the wheel diameters, not the philisophical questions involved with allowing it... One has to consider both, because there WILL be an effective performance change if +1/+2 type allowances are granted... (doesn't mean necessarily POSITIVE performance changes, just changes in general...)



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Geo
07-18-2003, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
I know that...


I know. That was not for your benefit, but the benefit of others who may miss the point.


Originally posted by Banzai240:
I was referring to the technical aspects of increasing the wheel diameters, not the philisophical questions involved with allowing it... One has to consider both, because there WILL be an effective performance change if +1/+2 type allowances are granted... (doesn't mean necessarily POSITIVE performance changes, just changes in general...)

That's all open for argument. I've seen different controlleds tests that yeilded different data. I'm sure it depends a lot on how long the straights are and how sharp the corners are.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

ITANorm
07-18-2003, 10:06 PM
Well, FWIW, the precedent exists. All the cars that came with "Ford & Michelin's great failure in marketing" - metric wheels - are allowed to substitute inch wheels. The reasoning behind that is the same as this proposal. It makes sense because of availability.

However - in order to completely validate the availability argument, the proposal would have to be worded such that: "Cars shown with 13" or 14" wheels may substitute 15" wheels of no greater rim width than is currently specified in the ITCS."

Not 13 to 14, or 14 to 13, or 15 to 16. That becomes "performance enhancing" and would not fit under the guise of rising expenses from limited availability of product.

Just my .02, as one who used to be a professional rules guru, on the inside.

Geo
07-19-2003, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by ITANorm:
Not 13 to 14, or 14 to 13, or 15 to 16. That becomes "performance enhancing" and would not fit under the guise of rising expenses from limited availability of product.

Again, this is dubious.

Controlled tests yeild inconsistent results. Low profile tires will react a bit faster, but the heavier wheels will slow acceleration.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

jc836
07-19-2003, 12:30 PM
Count me in and keep the fingers crossed that we get enough people. I already proposed this to the CB. I genuinely believe that a +1 is not a real competitive advantage if the rest of the equation is kept as you suggest.

------------------
Grandpa's toys-modded suspensions and a few other tweaks
'89 CRX Si-SCCA ITA #99
'99 Prelude=a sweet song
'03 Dodge Dakota Club Cab V8-Patriot Blue gonna tow

dyoungre
07-21-2003, 02:42 PM
Is the issue tire availability, wheel availability, or both? If just wheel, then what about requiring the stock wheel be used?
As someone who currently needs to replace a couple of wheels, I would surely support by writing to the CB...Is there an easy way to submit (IE email, or only the old fashion, lick the stamp method?)

------------------

RFloyd
07-21-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Again, this is dubious.

Controlled tests yeild inconsistent results. Low profile tires will react a bit faster, but the heavier wheels will slow acceleration.




Why would it matter, anyway? Even if it is for the purposes of changing gearing, allowing the use of any wheel diameter within a maximum width is no more against the "spirit" of low-cost than allowing $1600 custom machined final drives. Sure, alternate F/D sets aren't that expensive for many cars, where they might be available as factory options or borrowed from other models, but in allowing their use in those cars the rules have almost mandated that folks like me pay big $$$ for a custom one for my car since no alternate F/D is available for my car. If I had the option of using any size wheel I want, as long as it's 7" or less wide, how is this any different than changing from a stock F/D to an alternate F/D, as already allowed by the rules. If you don't want this kind of performance enhancing option for fear of escalating costs (I guess you envision a different set of wheels/tires being necessary for each different track you run, to optimise gearing to the nth degree, in order to stay competitive), then we need to outlaw ALL alternate F/D rations and make everyone run the stock ring and pinion. Ooooh weeee, that's be popular.

Admit it, there are VERY FEW RATIONAL ARGUMENTS against allowing open wheel diameter, as long as all other factors stay as they are, when you consider that F/D's are already open making the "violates the spirit of low cost" argument invalid.

------------------
Richard Floyd
'86 Acura Integra LS #90
SCCA ITA / NASA ECHC H5

[This message has been edited by RFloyd (edited July 21, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by RFloyd (edited July 21, 2003).]

Banzai240
07-21-2003, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by RFloyd:
Admit it, there is NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT against allowing open wheel diameter, as long as all other factors stay as they are.


Before I respond to this, let me re-itterate that I am very open minded about changing the rules concerning wheel sizes in IT, and wish to "advise" based what the general membership desires to that effect...

NOW, I'm not sure I completely understand where you are coming from on this (addressed to Mr. Floyd) but there is a HECK of a lot more effects to a car when changing wheel diameter, even on an IT car, than just gearing changes... You don't need different wheels to change gearing, just go to a taller tire. Oh, but why wouldn't you want to do that??? For the opposite reason why you WOULD want to go to a lower profile tire... SIDEWALL height...

I don't agree that there isn't a performance improvement, even if some magazine decided to publish a test to show otherwise... But regardless, there are other factors that can be effected as well.

For instance, larger wheels unshroud the brakes a bit, allowing for better air circulation and therefore, better cooling.

One can also run tighter tire-to-strut/spring clearances, since the tires shorter sidewall isn't going to flex as much, which means a wider tire can be fitted.

Spring rate changes should have more effect, because the tire is doing less as a "spring" itself as you go shorter in sidewall height...

I'm sure there are others...

The bottom line is that we have to look at the overall effect of the change and decide if it's a good thing for IT. Ultimately, it should be up to all of you to decide. You just have to be sure to let the ITAC/CB know what your decision is! (which means WRITE YOUR LETTERS! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )

I do believe it would be nice to give people options, and also think we need to look carefully at what is READILY AVAILABLE. It does no good to allow a 15x6" wheel when they are just as hard to get as a 13/14" wheel... Likewise, if there is a movement toward allowing 16"+ wheels, if the generally available sizes, or the most popular sizes are 7.5" width rather than 7" or ???, then it cost the competitor less in the long run if we go with what is more popular...

Whatever makes the most sense for IT...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

RFloyd
07-21-2003, 05:51 PM
NOW, I'm not sure I completely understand where you are coming from on this (addressed to Mr. Floyd) but there is a HECK of a lot more effects to a car when changing wheel diameter, even on an IT car, than just gearing changes... You don't need different wheels to change gearing, just go to a taller tire. Oh, but why wouldn't you want to do that??? For the opposite reason why you WOULD want to go to a lower profile tire... SIDEWALL height...

I don't agree that there isn't a performance improvement, even if some magazine decided to publish a test to show otherwise... But regardless, there are other factors that can be effected as well.



OK, I should clarify - I agree with you, I believe there is a performance enhancement to be had. And yes, I I know there're more variables affected than just gearing when changing wheel diameter, and that gearing can already be affected just as directly by changing sidewall height. But I would add that there is only a certain range of aspect ratios available in any given tire size, and by allowing a driver to choose alternate wheel diameters only seems to open up the window of available tire fitments.

Yes, larger diameter wheels do have the other benefits you mentioned, albeit all with negative side effects such as extra weight and rotational mass. Methinks there are advantages to be had, but they are small. ON THE OTHER HAND, compare the marginal improvements of larger diameter wheels (don't even think about how much easier it will be to get wheels and how much LESS $$$ will have to be dropped on wheels if 15's and up are allowed instead of having to hunt for 13's and 14's...) to the enormous benefit gained from expensive LEGAL modifications such as the use of $1600 custom machined F/D sets, $1000 + custom valved shock sets, LSD's, blueprinting and balancing, etc., etc., etc.

I know the line has to be drawn somewhere, but to say allowing guys who are forced to run 13" wheels the freedom to upsize to a wheel diameter that can actually be bought for a reasonable price from more than 2 manufacturers in the world is somehow gonna give them some insurmountable performance advantage and it violates the "spirit" of low-cost in IT is laughable at best.

OBTW, I've amended my original statement to a little more accurately convey this sentement...

------------------
Richard Floyd
'86 Acura Integra LS #90
SCCA ITA / NASA ECHC H5

dyoungre
07-21-2003, 08:57 PM
I absolutely agree that the cost reduction is much more significant than the performance enhancement potential. Don't forget that going from a 13" with 45 series to 15 inch with the same will change ride height adversely; returning to the minimum ride height will most likely hurt already strained geometry, and may limit suspension travel. Not all is rosy....

------------------
Dave Youngren
NER ITA RX7 #69

ITA_CRX
07-22-2003, 06:53 AM
I still don't see any need for this change.

Are 6 inch rims hard to find? You can fit a 225 on a 6 inch rim, the ITC guys do it very effectively. You don't have to run a 7 inch rim. It isn't required under the rules. Do you have any data showing how much faster 7 inch rims are?

Are you talking about only allowing cars with 13s and 14s to use larger sizes? I don't like this idea because you get into different cars having different rules as opposed to one rule for everyone.

Jamie

Tom Donnelly
07-22-2003, 11:04 AM
This presents quite a cost issue for me.
What if someone, me for example, has spent years, time and money accumulating several sets of legal sized and very light and competitive wheels for the particular type of car being run? And accumulating and heat cycling several sets of legal tires as well to keep a leg up in tire usage and remain competitive. Only to find, within a short time that the investment was wasted. That the 1 inch difference is about a half to one second difference in lap time and the 3-4 sets of former premium 14" wheels are basically junk. And the only reason that 14" wheels were bought was based upon legality?

Cast off used pro tires are a nice concept but there's a dang good reason the pro teams cast them off too.

This all reminds me of the performance coatings/no performance coatings issue and the RR shocks/no RR shocks issue.

You can have your dang 17" wheels if I can have my dang RR shocks! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif And don't tell me to go to production, don't they allow bigger rims in production?

George, who do I write to and what's the address/email?

Tom

Banished Wadded Boxers Motorsports

[This message has been edited by Tom Donnelly (edited July 22, 2003).]

racerdave600
08-20-2003, 06:30 PM
As someone who is now shopping for 14 x 7's, I can tell you they either have to be custom made, or you have to wait for someone like Panasport to make a run. They are NOT easy to get, and they are expensive. I've checked several sources, granted not all, for others, and was told that Borbet and some others had made them until recently, but not anymore.

I could have 15 x 7s delivered the next day for less than half the cost. I've spent quite a bit of money getting my car to this point, it would be nice if I didn't have to drop another one to two thousand on wheels, and then add in the cost of tires.

Dave

Greg Gauper
08-20-2003, 08:53 PM
The concept of allowing a larger size rim is not against the philosophy of the class....

Cars originally equiped with 12" rims are allowed to go to 13", so a precedent of sorts has been set (for what it's worth).

Jake
08-21-2003, 07:19 AM
I hope you are all writing letters to the CB!

Dave Ebersole
08-21-2003, 09:38 AM
My BMW 2002 uses 13" wheels. If I go to 15's, that will give me room for bigger brakes. After all, it is a race car, brakes are a safety item, it's easier to get Brembo parts than the old, hard to find OEM Bimmer stuff, etc. Wait a minute! 15X7's are easier to get than 15X6's. All I need to do is get an allowance for fiberglass fender flares.

Dave Ebersole
O=00=O

Tongue in Cheek, of course!

Banzai240
08-21-2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Dave Ebersole:
My BMW 2002 uses 13" wheels. If I go to 15's, that will give me room for bigger brakes. After all, it is a race car, brakes are a safety item, it's easier to get Brembo parts than the old, hard to find OEM Bimmer stuff, etc. Wait a minute! 15X7's are easier to get than 15X6's. All I need to do is get an allowance for fiberglass fender flares.

Dave Ebersole
O=00=O

Tongue in Cheek, of course!

Point taken... but why is it that everyone seems to think that changes have to be part of a cascading trend? Is it not possible to implement just ONE without it having to lead to ten others?? Especially when the ONE makes sense, but the other ten are definately a stretch...??

(A question I already know the answer to, of course! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )

I think we should just do away with the wheel limits entirely and just say that you can run any size wheel/tire combo that will fit within the stock fender with NO illegal mods... Maybe with a maximum width allowance of 7.5"... Then let everyone decide for themselves which is the best size to run...

But what the heck do I know... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited August 21, 2003).]

Jake
08-21-2003, 10:58 AM
I COMPLETELY agree with Darin.

If they fit - you must allow-it.

That also fixes the problem when cars go from ITA to ITB or back.

Dave Ebersole
08-21-2003, 11:15 AM
I see now. Those cars that have the fender room to take advantage of such a proposal gain an advantage over those that don't. Someone explain to me how this is fair.

Dave Ebersole
O=00=O

Banzai240
08-21-2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Dave Ebersole:
I see now. Those cars that have the fender room to take advantage of such a proposal gain an advantage over those that don't. Someone explain to me how this is fair.

Dave Ebersole
O=00=O

Since when is IT racing "fair"???

And... please explain to me the "advantage" that is there to be gained.

You race a BMW, right? If you can fit a 13" or 14" wheel, then you can fit a 15" wheel with the right tire. Same goes for 16" or 17" wheels... The tire dimensions don't change... just the rim diameter.

You exploit the advantages that the rules afford your car. THAT is IT racing, so it doesn't sound to me like anything would really change, except that you would now have more wheel choices...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Jake
08-21-2003, 01:14 PM
Dave, C'mon - are you serious? Using your logic right back at you, currently vehicles that came with factory options of different sized wheel diameters are getting an advantage, while those that didn't don't. In a way - this does more to equalize the playing field than it does to give anyone a competitive advantage.

Geo
08-21-2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
Dave, C'mon - are you serious? Using your logic right back at you, currently vehicles that came with factory options of different sized wheel diameters are getting an advantage, while those that didn't don't. In a way - this does more to equalize the playing field than it does to give anyone a competitive advantage.

Bloody right. So is Darin.

If we want to bitch, I want to be able to use the 8" wide rear wheels that came stock on my car. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif (But if we're not going to bitch, I'll be happy with changing them to 7")


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Dave Ebersole
08-21-2003, 10:32 PM
I know the fender clearance under my '02. 7's are not going to fit my car. They would fit most other ITB cars. I cannot fit anything wider than a 205/60. In fact, Hoosier 205/60s are too wide. Changing the rules to "run whatever fits" is a big disadvantage to me compared to the rules as they now stand. I'm on a closer to level playing field with the ITB competition with current rules. I'm just like you guys; I want rules that favor my car, or, at least rules that are not a big disadvantage for me.
Dave Ebersole
O=00=O

Dave Ebersole
08-21-2003, 10:34 PM
How many cars are there that can move back and forth between ITA and ITB. I don't know of any.
Dave Ebersole
O=00=O

Jake
08-22-2003, 10:36 AM
I meant if a car were to be reclassed from B to A or A to B

But now that you bring it up, it would allow Spec Miatas to run in ITA.

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited August 22, 2003).]

08-22-2003, 12:09 PM
I agree with the idea that it would be nice to have more than one or two choices of tires, and save a little money by allowing older cars to update to 15 inch rims, you are missing one important point. It's not always the size or diameter of the rim that makes them hard or nearly impossible to find, it's also the lug pattern. Back in the 90's you could find 14x7's for Z cars from at least half a dozen manufacturers. Now, it's only one or two. Reason? 4x114mm lug pattern. You can still find many wheels with 4 lug patterns, but most, if not nearly all are made for FWD applications with way to much offset to be used on RWD cars.
Case in point, American Racing had at least 6 different models of wheels that fit a Z car in the 90's for under 100 bucks each, now? NONE!
Even if the rules were changed to allow cars that are now saddled with 13's and 14's, the market for 4 lug, 15 inch wheels that could be used is still going to be a small one, Panasport, Revolution, etc... still gonna be expensive. The only savings will be in the tires, and number of choices of different sizes and profiles.
Just something else to consider. Just because the rules get changed to say you can upgrade to 15 inch diameter wheels, not every competitor is going to be able to find wheels with the correct offset or lug pattern.

Jake
08-22-2003, 01:00 PM
Good points. Lug pattern is an issue as well. However, I'm surprised you'd have much problem finding 14x7's. I see used Toyota Supra wheels or aftermarket AE86 wheels in 14x7 all the time for cheap. I'm pretty sure they all use RWD offset 4x114.3 like you. If you don't like that, you can get converters that allow you to mount up FWD 4X100 wheels too.

Geo
08-22-2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by 2Many Z's:
Back in the 90's you could find 14x7's for Z cars from at least half a dozen manufacturers. Now, it's only one or two. Reason? 4x114mm lug pattern. You can still find many wheels with 4 lug patterns, but most, if not nearly all are made for FWD applications...

Not so. The only manufacturers of 14x7 wheels for FWD are Panasport and Revolution so far as I can find.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Jake
08-22-2003, 08:46 PM
FYI: Revolution has stopped producing 14x7 wheels.

Geo
08-22-2003, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
FYI: Revolution has stopped producing 14x7 wheels.

OMG!

IMHO this should be the number one issue in front of the ITAC and the CB for next season. All that is left is Panasport. I wonder how much longer that will last - especially since Revolution has stopped supplying them.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Allen Brown
08-25-2003, 09:53 AM
Just a comment from the (western)Great White North...

Under the rules for the Western Canada Motorsports Association. We allow any diameter, but rim width must follow the same maximum width as SCCA specifies for their classes (ITS&ITA=7"; ITB&ITC=6")

It certainly allows flexibility for not having to buy sometimes more expensive rims.

If you are switching tracks and are wanting to change your gearing via tire OD (ei. 225/50-14 vs 225/50-15)

Before last weekend, I realized I may not have enough tire for 4 hours of track time. (Canadian GT Championship) So, I scrambled, and found there was no 225/50-14 Toyos or Kumhos in North America through the usual sources, but I was able to get a set of Ecstas (225/45-15). Almost same OD as the 225/50-14. In a crunch, I could even run these 14 and 15 tires on the car at the same time. Yes, the handing changes, but they will get you by if the need arises. Without this flexiblility, I would have been hooped for the weekend.

By the way...The ecsta is worth at least 1.5 second over the Toyo at my home track in Calgary.

I can't think of any REAL reason to not allow the wheel diameter flexibility.

Just a comment from someone that may have froze the brain too many times....

rage_racing
09-25-2003, 02:01 PM
okay as the newbie to this forum and racing in general .. I am cornfuzed.. but hey thats normal..

but as far as rim diameter changes as stated before as long as you dont change the rim width there is no real difference other than maybe a little weight. and added cooling to your brakes .. the difference comes in when you make your tire selection.
I could get real indepth with all this if I break out the books I used to run a tire /wheel store many moons ago..I forgot most of what I used to know

other than that my actual question is on my 87 prelude what wheel options do I have to work with by current rules? it has stock 14x6 aluminums on it now 195/60/14

Jake
09-25-2003, 02:42 PM
No - because of SCCA's cruel Joke, you need to get rid of those 14's because they were not original equipment on your car. You need to find some little dinky 13" rims to race on.

rage_racing
09-25-2003, 02:52 PM
okay thats what I wasnt sure of .. not sure what honda these came off of though!!!! anyone need a set of 14x6 honda rims lol

Geo
09-25-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
No - because of SCCA's cruel Joke, you need to get rid of those 14's because they were not original equipment on your car. You need to find some little dinky 13" rims to race on.

Keep writing to the CB. PLEASE.

We get regular requests to open this rule up. I am 100% behind this change, but am still having trouble convincing some in the ITAC that this rule is becoming a serious problem. I'm not familiar with 13" wheel availability (probably worse than 14"), but there is currently only one supplier for 14x7 wheels (Panasport). The requirement to purchase special racing wheels seems to me to be much further from the intent of IT than allowing larger wheels is.

Please write. If the CB keeps getting letters (which are forwarded to the ITAC) requesting this, the CB and the ITAC will have to give this matter more serious consideration.

Lest you believe I am pushing this for my own purposes, don't. My 944 is not only allowed 15" wheels, but I am also allowed 16" wheels (I'm still going to run 15" because I think the 16" will be of no advantage). The point is, this does not affect me or my car personally. This in no way improves my position. I think it is the right thing to do for IT and is way over due.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

lateapex911
09-25-2003, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Keep writing to the CB. PLEASE.

We get regular requests to open this rule up. I am 100% behind this change, but am still having trouble convincing some in the ITAC that this rule is becoming a serious problem.......



Hey Geo.....any idea of the reasons behind the reluctance?? I think it's a good idea, although I have no interest in changing.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Banzai240
09-25-2003, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Keep writing to the CB... PLEASE...

We get regular requests to open this rule up. I am 100% behind this change, but am still having trouble convincing some in the ITAC that this rule is becoming a serious problem.


I'm behind Geo on this one, and fully agree that we need all of you to write with your thoughts on the matter...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited September 25, 2003).]

RacerBill
09-26-2003, 12:56 PM
Since the car I intend to race in ITA came with 14 wheels, and also the fact that the car, '83 Shelby Dodge, will probably not be a front runner, I don't think I have much skin in the game.

However, I must agree that allowing different wheel sizes is needed change, and fits just as well within the spirit of the class when you look at all the other changes that have been lobbied, errr, added over the years. As a matter of fact, it makes much more sense than coil-overs, etc.
If the CB would give up the information, they would probably say that the additions were made because repacement parts that fit the description of 'stock' were getting scarce. At least that's the reason they give for why we have fiberglass bodies, etc. on 'production' cars.

I will write to the CA to show my support.

Geo
09-26-2003, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Hey Geo.....any idea of the reasons behind the reluctance??

I think there are a handful of reasons.

1) The (IMHO) inaccurate belief that they will be a big competitive advantage.

Testing by various magazines with same car, same wheel in different diameters, and same tires in different wheel diameters and same OD have yielded results that are generally marginal and also conflicting. In the end it is my belief that there is and improvement in feel, but generally there is no real improvement in lap times due in large part to the fact larger diameter wheels are heavier and harder to accelerate.

2) Resistance to "rules creep."

While a commendable position, as has already been pointed out, they are less of a rules creep than other allowed modifications. Furthermore, I believe opening up the wheel diameters is much more in keeping with the class philosophy than spherical bearings and coilovers.

3) The belief that wheels are still available.

The problem is, in many sizes, wheels are becoming very scarce. It's not (IMHO) within class philosophy (sp?) to require competitors to purchase special race wheels to go racing in IT. Yes, I know you can run narrower tires, but let's be real here.

Furthermore, I think some of the people who think wheels are still available have cars for which they either have long had a good supply of wheels, or they have cars for which wheels are still reasonably easy to find. Just try finding 14x7 wheels. Your only source is Panasport.

To reiterate, I think it's time we change this rule for a couple of reasons.

1) Availability - let's change it now while we have the "luxury" of taking just a bit of time to make a well thought out rule rather than suddenly having to change because nobody is offering them new anymore and then have to make a panic decision.

2) It fits class philosophy - when IT was originally developed, the idea was to take SS cars and others and allow some simple, basic, modifications using commonly available parts. The aftermarket has changed in the last 25 years and this rule is an anachronism. Let's change the rule to reflect this.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Knestis
09-26-2003, 03:43 PM
It strikes me that this will be a particularly timely issue if the performance compensation thing goes through: Any car moved from A to B will lose an inch of width so maybe the issue is addressed holistically and width being on the table for consideration as well...?

K

Geo
09-26-2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
It strikes me that this will be a particularly timely issue if the performance compensation thing goes through: Any car moved from A to B will lose an inch of width so maybe the issue is addressed holistically and width being on the table for consideration as well...?

K

You know, that is exceptionally astute Kirk. This would further pave the way for reclassifications with a minimum of pain for the car owners. It will eliminate a barrier for reclassification.

I will bring this up with the ITAC.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

09-26-2003, 06:50 PM
Something else that might make a difference.
If cars were allowed to run 15 inch instead of only being allowed 14 inch in IT (just picking one size as a demostration), it would make crossover to Production that much easier.

If a competitior wanted to race one weekend in IT he could just have one size and/or brand of wheels if his choosing, then if he were to decide that he wanted to run EP the rest of the season or just the next couple races, all they would need to do is get the appropriate tires, and not spend the extra money to buy wheels and tires.
If the SCCA wants to encourage this type of cross-over racing, then it would behoove them to make it as financially viable for any and all competitors.

For instance, if a 240Z driver were to be allowed 15 inch in ITS, then all he would truly need to do to run EP would be to change tires. Not everyone is going to have 4-8 sets of wheels at their disposal to run multiple classes. A large number of IT cars could make the crossover to Production with little more than window clips and the wheel/tire combo.
Maybe if that were included in the letters it might make a few points in our favor for opening up the rule.

lateapex911
09-26-2003, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by 2Many Z's:
For instance, if a 240Z driver were to be allowed 15 inch in ITS, then all he would truly need to do to run EP would be to change tires.

Actually, are slicks required in Prod?? From what I've seen lots of ITS cars run EP times regionally. Of course, you won't be runoffs bound, but you could be respectable regionally.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

09-26-2003, 09:43 PM
Good question... I'm waiting for the 2004 GCR and rules to come off the press before I spend the money on them, so I don't know if slicks are required in Production or not...

And for what it's worth, the ITS lap record set at the Labor Day Double at Summit Point, was a couple hundredths under the winning EP cars fastest race lap that weekend....... yup, it was an E-36... regional, but still... makes you realize just how fast those E-36's can be.....more fuel to the debate that the E-36 probably should have been put in EP to begin with and not ITS....

Banzai240
09-27-2003, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by 2Many Z's:
... so I don't know if slicks are required in Production or not...

PCS - 17.1.1.D.8. Wheels and Tires

b. Tires: Cars shall utilize tires meeting or exceeding the requirements of GCR Section 11.2.1.D.

GCR - 11.2.1.

"D. Tires - 120 mph-rated or better unless otherwise specified or controlled."

So... NO, Slicks are NOT required...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

x-ring
09-27-2003, 02:15 AM
"Just try finding 14x7 wheels. Your only source is Panasport."

George, Koenig makes a wheel in 14x7x114.3 called the Rewind that looks similar to a Panasport. I think they're around 13.2 lbs and retail at about $100.

There is a guy on the west cost that posts a sale notice over on zcar.com periodically, four wheels for $325 plus shipping.

I know you don't drive a Datsun, and it's not exactly on subject, but I thought I'd just toss it out for general information.

Hijacking complete.

BTW, I support the change. I'll get a letter off this weekend.

Ty

ITA_CRX
09-29-2003, 08:11 AM
What is the opinion for how this rule should be changed?

Is it just to allow larger diameter wheels or is it to allow you to change the diameter of the wheel?

I'd think that some cars with 15/16s would like to run smaller rims.

Jamie

Geo
09-29-2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by ITA_CRX:
What is the opinion for how this rule should be changed?

Is it just to allow larger diameter wheels or is it to allow you to change the diameter of the wheel?

My personal inclination would be to allow any wheel that fits fully under the wheelwheel (wheel nor tire may stick out beyond the widest part of the fender).


Originally posted by ITA_CRX:
I'd think that some cars with 15/16s would like to run smaller rims.

I wish them good luck for finding them in widths appropriate for racing. They are not readily available and are expensive.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

09-29-2003, 12:22 PM
Just a side note on the Koenig Rewinds.
From what has been discussed on another Z car board, the guy that is selling them bought up a bunch when Koenig decided to drop the model from their line of wheels. So, supply is limited to the wheels he is selling and/or other used wheels. Kinda like buying a used set of early AR wheels, you need a replacement, you might be SOL.

Super Swift
09-30-2003, 04:51 PM
Well because of the car I run I want to be able to run 12 inch rims. I also agree some wheel sizes are hard to find. And changing the rule would make it easier for some to find light racing wheels.

But… Free wheel size is huge "rule creep" and this whole topic is against class philosophy. Sorry Geo, but I feel modifications such as coilovers and spherical bearings are part of the class philosophy.

My only hope is that if the rule is changed smaller diameter wheels will also be aloud.

Knestis
09-30-2003, 06:02 PM
This becomes an interesting case of unintended consequences, as these things often do. Allowing smaller wheels is completely contrary to the reasoning behind the original suggestion - wheels LARGER than 14" are easy to find. Those smaller than 15" are HARDER to find so supporting the idea of a rule change to go that route is no longer rationalized by the original premise.

K

Geo
09-30-2003, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Super Swift:
But… Free wheel size is huge "rule creep" and this whole topic is against class philosophy. Sorry Geo, but I feel modifications such as coilovers and spherical bearings are part of the class philosophy.

Are you bloody kidding me????

Spherical bearings within the class philosophy of IT? Production, yes. IT, hell no. I could see allowing alternate materials, but not metal, i.e. spherical bearings. This would allow Urethane and other high density materials that are commonly available for most cars.

Why do you think open wheel diameters is against class philosophy? Especially when stock diameter wheels are getting near impossible to find for many cars?

Spherical bearings? I'm still blown away by that. IMHO they should go the way of RR dampers.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Super Swift
10-01-2003, 08:57 PM
Geo- Cheap. Solid. Bushing. nuff said. Opinions differ and that’s life. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Kirt- The whole reason this topic started is because some people feel they can go faster on larger wheels the rest is political jargon to try and sway the masses. I feel I will go faster on smaller wheels, so I want (if and only if the rule is changed) wheel sizes to be free across the board.

Just to make it clear I am still against changing the rule.

Knestis
10-01-2003, 09:13 PM
Actually no, you are wrong. The reason this question has been brought up - and I have done so repeatedly - is that it is all but impossible to find 14x7" wheels. When I was planning on an ITA Honda, I did a LOT of shopping around - to no avail.

Now that I'm headed to ITB, it's not a personal issue for me since I can find a variety of 14x6" wheels - at least for now. That doesn't mean that I don't think it is a sensible option to consider making the change.

K

Geo
10-01-2003, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Super Swift:
Geo- Cheap. Solid. Bushing. nuff said. Opinions differ and that’s life. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Most correct. Reasonable people can disagree. I'm with you on that.

As for cheap? Only if you can machine the cassettes yourself. Or, if you are lucky enough to find a bearing that will fit (without modification) inside the control arms. Not likely. Otherwise, you have to have cassettes machined to hold the spherical bearings. Easy for a real race shop. IMHO, not in the spirit (or philosophy) of the IT rules.

But, I do agree that reasonable people disagree. Besides, there are still people who think RR dampers belong in IT.

Of, and FWIW, I am designing spherical bearing cassettes for my 944 and my business partner's Sentra SE-R. I just think it's nuts. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

TypeSH
10-03-2003, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Actually no, you are wrong. The reason this question has been brought up - and I have done so repeatedly - is that it is all but impossible to find 14x7" wheels. When I was planning on an ITA Honda, I did a LOT of shopping around - to no avail.


It is not impossible to find 14x7 wheels, they are available but they are expensive. Allowing a wheel diameter change would help reduce the costs of racing for those who want to go this route, which I am all for. Similarly I would like to run 15" wheels instead of the mandated 16" to save money. Sticking with my same make and model of wheels and tires, it would save me about $100 a set of rims and $80 a set of tires. To me this only fair solution is to allow a move up OR down in size.

theenico
10-07-2003, 02:00 AM
[quote]Originally posted by Super Swift:
[B]Geo- Cheap. Solid. Bushing. nuff said. Opinions differ and that’s life. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Here's a link to cheap monoball housings/heim holders. The most "expensive" one is $16.00

http://www.ubmachine.com/page24.html

Some will fit with no mods and some may need the OD turned down, but I was still able to convert my Scirocco for less than half of what Shine wants.

Back on the original topic, I believe that wheels should be allowed in any diameter (no "dubs with floss" please http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif ) and widths to be no greater than 7" for everyone.

Is anyone else getting tired of Fast & Furious kids asking us if we want their stock wheels http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

With a lot of the IT cars being classed in limited prep production wouldn't it be nice to have the option of jumping over without having to buy more wheels. Of course Avon does make a fairly mediocre 14" slick for us.

------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by theenico (edited October 07, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by theenico (edited October 07, 2003).]

Knestis
10-07-2003, 07:27 AM
If you have an FnF'r offer you 14x6 alloys off of any MkIII VW, take 'em - I pay shipping to get them to me, where they can do some good...

Kirk

EDIT - 4x100 pattern, please!

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited October 07, 2003).]

Geo
10-07-2003, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by theenico:
Here's a link to cheap monoball housings/heim holders. The most "expensive" one is $16.00

http://www.ubmachine.com/page24.html

Some will fit with no mods and some may need the OD turned down, but I was still able to convert my Scirocco for less than half of what Shine wants.

Great link. But, it's also only applicable to a portion of the application. What do you do for the trailing pivot on the control arm? And what do cars with IRS do? The bottom line is a full set of spherical bearing cassettes are not cheap. Most need to be custom-made. That sounds more like what belongs in Production than IT to me. Philosophically I don't think they fit in IT.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Banzai240
10-07-2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
And what do cars with IRS do?


I'll tell you what I have to do... I have 5 links on EACH SIDE in the rear... times 2 bearings per link.... AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH...... one.... two... threee... oh, there's a dime, fourteen... fifteen... sixteen... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Geo
10-07-2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
I'll tell you what I have to do... I have 5 links on EACH SIDE in the rear... times 2 bearings per link....

Plus one cassette per end of each link that must be custom-made at what, $25-50 per cassette? Minimum.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

SamITC85
10-07-2003, 02:45 PM
Okay a couple of comments. First off with this rule change the 16 13x6 wheels I own are now obsolete in IT, plus I really doubt that I could fit anything much bigger than a 14" rim on my ITC rabbit without changes legal to IT, maybe I could but I doubt it. Secondly it was brought up that bigger wheels would allow easier transition to Prod, not true at all. I believe the largest wheel in G and H prod is 14 inches, so allowing an ITC or ITB competitior 15 inch wheels is not going to make an easy crossover to prod. This rule is going to cost me and a lot of ITC and B guys a lot of money that we have already invested in wheels and tires. Because of this I am not so sure this is the way to go, plus I can find a lot of 13x 5.5 wheels fairly easy, 14" are a different story I agree, and for that my solution would be to allow 13" wheels, as well, I know the ITB Golfs have that option. Anyway just my .02 worth

------------------
Sam Rolfe
TBR Motorsports
#85 ITC VW Rabbit
#85 GP Scirocco on the way
#11 GP Scirocco on the way

Banzai240
10-07-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by SamITC85:
Okay a couple of comments. First off with this rule change the 16 13x6 wheels I own are now obsolete in IT...

I would love to hear the rational behind this statement...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

SamITC85
10-07-2003, 03:30 PM
Obsolete may have not been the best word, but I do believe that their will be a performance advantage to anyone who runs a 15" rim on their car. Which means if i want to compete I need to get new wheels.

Greg Amy
10-07-2003, 04:00 PM
I would strongly disagree, Sam. 13" wheels (v 15" wheels) are:

- lighter
- smaller circumference
- stronger

The *only* viable reason for running larger diameter wheels is:

- required by the rules (e.g., WC runs 17")
- gotta fit larger brakes under there
- more variety in wheel choice
- more variety in tire choice
- want to look "bling"

I run 14x7 wheels on my ITS car, and I've already got 6 good wheels. If these guys are successful in getting an open diameter I won't be buying any 15" wheels until the day the good tires are no longer available in my size.

Nope, Sam, I fail to see any downsides to this, really. Let your competitors tack on an extra 5 pounds per wheel and increase their rolling circumference. You can smile as you accelerate right by 'em...

Greg

SamITC85
10-07-2003, 04:21 PM
Greg you may be right, I will be accelerating by them but in an ITC car at somewhere like the glen, pocono, Road Atlanta, Mid Ohio or any track with a long straight the 15 inch wheel will generate a high top speed and go by me buy the end of the longer straights. Also I was more trying to play devils advocate more than anything.

------------------
Sam Rolfe
TBR Motorsports
#85 ITC VW Rabbit
#85 GP Scirocco on the way
#11 GP Scirocco on the way

Geo
10-07-2003, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by grega:
I run 14x7 wheels on my ITS car, and I've already got 6 good wheels. If these guys are successful in getting an open diameter I won't be buying any 15" wheels until the day the good tires are no longer available in my size.

Or, until you bend 3 wheels since your wheels are NLA because you could buy at least two full sets of 15" wheels for what a set of 14x7 Panasports run (assuming they remain available). http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Banzai240
10-07-2003, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by grega:
- more variety in wheel choice
- more variety in tire choice


Thank you for supporting the argument FOR this change...


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I run 14x7 wheels on my ITS car, and I've already got 6 good wheels. If these guys are successful in getting an open diameter I won't be buying any 15\" wheels until the day the good tires are no longer available in my size.</font>

NICE to have options, though, isn't it!!?? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


Nope, Sam, I fail to see any downsides to this, really. Let your competitors tack on an extra 5 pounds per wheel and increase their rolling circumference. You can smile as you accelerate right by 'em...
Greg

And then those of us with 16" wheels will smile as we corner right by you!! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Seriously though... There really isn't a down side to this, and as you can "see" (read), there are as many arguments as to why there ISN'T an advantage as to why there might be. The bottom line is that it would give everyone POPULAR options, which makes racing CHEAPER from an equipment standpoint...

Somebody needs to start writing those letters, however...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 07, 2003).]

Bill Miller
10-08-2003, 05:31 AM
Well Darin, I think there is a downside. If you open things up and start allowing all the IT cars to run 15" wheels, I can see the tire mfg's going the way of the wheel mfg's and offereing less and less in 13" and 14" (does Hankook have any plans of offer 13's or 14's?). That hurts the guys that currently have large inventories of 13" and 14" wheels as they'll have less tires to choose from, or they'll have to pony up money for new wheels and will have 13" or 14" wheels that will really have no value to anyone anymore (and that includes the Panasports/Revolutions/etc. that people have already bought).

As far as Prod goes, there aren't many (any?) cars in HP that can run 15" wheels, but several (most) of the GP cars are allowed 15's.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Greg Amy
10-09-2003, 01:03 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Thank you for supporting the argument FOR this change...</font>

C'mon, Darin. I think you're becoming far too gun shy lately.

I personally don't give a rat's ass about this rule, as in my mind I've currently got the perfect wheel size in terms of performance. I was simply pointing out to Sam that larger diameter wheels - given everything else equal - are a performance disadvantage.

Maybe not everything else is equal, but that's irrelevant to my point.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...will smile as we corner right by you!!</font>

Darin, you explain to me how a 225/50-13 tire is in any manner faster or corners better than a 225/50-15 and I'll concede your point. However:

225/50-13 Hoosier
8.3" tread width
21.8" diameter
68.5" circumference
9.1" section width

225/50-15 Hoosier
8.2" tread width
23.4" diameter
73.6" circumference
9.0" section width

The 13" wheel and tire combination is clearly superior in terms of track performance. It's lighter, stronger, and has 7% less rolling diameter. Hell, it's like moving from a 3.81 final drive to a 4.2!

Considering all unintended consquences, I guaran-damn-tee you that if the wording allows it, you'll see people going DOWN in wheel diameter. I would if I could.

Greg

Banzai240
10-09-2003, 01:45 PM
Darin, you explain to me how a 225/50-13 tire is in any manner faster or corners better than a 225/50-15 and I'll concede your point. However:

225/50-13 Hoosier
8.3" tread width
21.8" diameter
68.5" circumference
9.1" section width

225/50-15 Hoosier
8.2" tread width
23.4" diameter
73.6" circumference
9.0" section width

The 13" wheel and tire combination is clearly superior in terms of track performance. It's lighter, stronger, and has 7% less rolling diameter. Hell, it's like moving from a 3.81 final drive to a 4.2![/B]

Time for class:

Given a 15" wheel option... why would I run a 225/50ZR15. Class? Bueller???

Answer: I wouldn't!

I would choose the following:
Hoosier A303 - 225/45ZR15 specs:
Section Width: 9.3"
Tread Width: 8.6"
Diameter: 22.8"
Circum: 71.63"
SIDEWALL HEIGHT: 3.9"

You are leaving out one VERY important factor... SIDEWALL HEIGHT...

Using your examples...

225/50ZR13 Sidewall Height: 4.4"
225/50ZR15 Sidewall Height: 4.2"
225/45ZR15 Sidewall Height: 3.9"

So, this aspect alone makes the 15" wheel/tire combo, even in your example, a superior tire from a performance/stability standpoint. Shorter sidewall means less flex which means more stable contact patch.

So, even though your 13" combo may have a larger tread width compared to your original example, less of that tread is staying in contact with the pavement because your sidewalls aren't stable enough to keep it there...

NOW, add the option of using the 45 series 15" tire instead, with a sidewall that's 1/2" shorter than YOUR 13" sidewall AND has a .3" MORE tread width, and the answer is clear... The effects of gearing (4% taller for the 15") can be compensated for with rear gears... but it likely wouldn't need to be, because off the following:

Larger diameter wheel + shorter sidewall + larger contact patch means more stable sidewalls + less flex means more contact patch remains in contact which translates to better handling which gives higher exit speeds which yields faster straightaway speeds which negates the need for lower gearing which equates to me kicking your ass! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Class dismissed...

OH wait... before you go... One more thing... the slightly higher mass of the 15" combination absorbs more heat than the 13" combination, which helps to keep the tires under the car longer, as does the larger rolling diameter, which gives the rubber more time to cool between contact...

("gunshy"??? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 09, 2003).]

Greg Amy
10-09-2003, 02:08 PM
I see your points, but I still disagree in the end result.

However, since you've "proven" there is most definitely a distinct performance advantage to allowing larger wheels then I would really, really hate to allow a modification that would, at a single stroke, immediately nullify the investment of all current wheels in use. Therefore, on this premise alone, I will vigorously and actively oppose the adoption of a rule that would allow IT cars to use any wheel other than the stock, listed diameter.

Thanks, Teach.

Banzai240
10-09-2003, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by grega:
I will vigorously and actively oppose the adoption of a rule that would allow IT cars to use any wheel other than the stock, listed diameter.

Whatever... Just remember that there is bound to be someone out there (George???) who has just as many reasons why the larger diameter combination is NOT a performance advantage... I doubt that 5% of us IT drivers out there would even have the money or the talent both come together at the same time to even tell the difference...

The point is to make this class less expensive overall, and allowing a more popular tire/wheel package means there is more supply, which means less cost... I'd take that over any performance advantage/disadvantage, perceived or otherwise... The short-term discomfort for some does not justify ignoring the long-term health of the class...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Geo
10-09-2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Shorter sidewall means less flex which means more stable contact patch.

Which has more to do with feel than actual performance.


Originally posted by Banzai240:
So, even though your 13" combo may have a larger tread width compared to your original example, less of that tread is staying in contact with the pavement because your sidewalls aren't stable enough to keep it there...

<snip>


Originally posted by Banzai240:
Larger diameter wheel + shorter sidewall + larger contact patch means more stable sidewalls + less flex means more contact patch remains in contact which translates to better handling which gives higher exit speeds which yields faster straightaway speeds which negates the need for lower gearing which equates to me kicking your ass! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

I'm not so sure you have that right teach. My understanding is that the contact patch size will remain the same. The shape will vary some. The feel will certainly change, but tests show that it's very arguable that there is any performance benefit.

It's kind of like swaybars. They do not make a car corner faster. They transfer load quicker (and allow you to alter f/r characteristics, but that's another story), but they do not increase grip. They change feel. Anyway, like a car w/o swaybars takes a while to take a set, so do tires will taller sidewalls. Assuming the suspension is set up correctly, and the sidewalls are not so tall that the car is actually cornering on the sidewalls, the cornering speed should be pretty much the same. It will just feel different as the car takes a set. That is my understanding of the issue.

[/B][/QUOTE]



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Greg Amy
10-09-2003, 02:48 PM
All sarcasm aside, Darin, I really, really, really don't care about this issue on a personal level, as I have the wheels and tires I need (yes, Geo, I know: "now"). Even if I didn't, I'd want to buy the best I could and that would be Panasports, and I'm gonna pay through the nose for them regardless of the diameter.

However, I see some distinctly inconsistently-applied ideals here, and that troubles me:

- Sam is told that his 14" wheels won't be obsoleted, yet I'm told 15" wheels are a distinct performance advantage ("...equates to me kicking your ass...);
- I'm told that less than 5% of us has the talent to notice the difference in performance between 14" and 15" wheels yet at the same time I'm told I have to spend all that money to get the nth degree of performance before I can prove my car is uncompetitive and must be re-classified (or PCA'd);
- I'm told I should accept a scale of economy over a performance advantage ("perceived or otherwise") any day yet I'm told that unless I spend the money I can't bitch about my ass being kicked;
- I'm told allowing 15" wheels will reduce the cost of the class, yet it's OK to make all the 14" wheels people currnently use obsolete. But wait, it's not a performance advantage, no wait yes it is, no wait it's not, yes it is, no it's not...

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What in the hell am I supposed to believe here? What in the hell do YOU believe?

(These are completely rhetorical questions...)

Geo
10-09-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by grega:
However, I see some distinctly inconsistently-applied ideals here, and that troubles me:

- Sam is told that his 14" wheels won't be obsoleted, yet I'm told 15" wheels are a distinct performance advantage ("...equates to me kicking your ass...);

There are still those who think they are a performance advantage. Controlled tests are pretty inconclusive. So much so that I don't think there is a performance difference. They will feel different, and that could affect an individual driver's performance while not affecting another's.


Originally posted by grega:
- I'm told that less than 5% of us has the talent to notice the difference in performance between 14" and 15" wheels


I know you're not attributing that to me Greg, but I'd like to go on record anyway and say "I didn't say that." In fact, I think they will actually feel different while not actually changing the overall performance.


Originally posted by grega:
- I'm told allowing 15" wheels will reduce the cost of the class, yet it's OK to make all the 14" wheels people currnently use obsolete.


Again, this is related to a perceived performance advantage that controlled tests do not bear out.


Originally posted by grega:
But wait, it's not a performance advantage, no wait yes it is, no wait it's not, yes it is, no it's not...

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What in the hell am I supposed to believe here? What in the hell do YOU believe?


All good points Greg. I think you already know what you believe, but you are rightfully making the point that this issue may be getting confusing for some folks.

The controlled tests I refer to are ones done by Grassroots Motorsports and European Car. I don't know the months off-hand but the EC article was a year or so ago and the GRM article was about 3-5 years ago.

For my part....

1) I don't believe there actually is a performance advantage

2) Wheel availability is already very much a serious issue

3) If Panasport decides to stop making 14x7 wheels we're screwed. Then we have to make a decision in a big damned hurry and that is not the way to go about it. We should do this in a controlled fashion and anticipate the loss of availability through Panasport.

4) Again, this does not affect me personally. I can already use 15" wheels and even 16" if I like on my car (I'll be sticking with 15" since I think there is no performance advantage and 15" wheels are significantly cheaper for me).


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

ryotko
10-09-2003, 03:57 PM
The GRM article is available online here http://www.grassrootsmotorsports.com/plustest.html

The results do pretty much favor the larger dia. wheel/tire combos. Something like 2 seconds between 14" -> 17" over an autocross.
...But the tires used were different, 14" were all-season and 15" - 17" were performance tires. So that needs to be taken into account. And you're not talking about autocross here. And one of the testers commented about the 17's "looking the best". And the test was conducted by Tire Rack employees...
So there may have been some incentive to recommend the larger wheels. Come to think of it, the "test" may not have answered many questions at all.
Personally I like 14's but then again my budget doesn't allow the very best of much.
-Bob

lateapex911
10-09-2003, 06:06 PM
On the sidewall issue, keep in mind that lower profile tires can have better transient response.....but don't allways. It's not apples to apples in every case here folks....

...the old Yoko A001R was a 70 series tire that I did a lot of back to bak testing with, in the same car on the same track on the dsame day with different drivers, and the 60 series version came up short every run for everybody. Consistantly half a second a lap.

Of course, the drivers of F1 cars never stop complaining about the poor transient response of their cars! (sarcasm off)

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Bill Miller
10-09-2003, 06:37 PM
I really had to laugh at how quickly Darin gave up his position on the performance advantage of a 15" tire (especially after he thought he did such a good job of proving it) when he realized that he might have just shot himself in the foot. That was priceless Darin, thank you! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
10-09-2003, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by ryotko:
The results do pretty much favor the larger dia. wheel/tire combos. Something like 2 seconds between 14" -> 17" over an autocross.

The European Car article yielded different results. This was same car, same wheels (except diameter) and same tire. Oh, and on a road course as well.

When you think about it, on an autocross course, you would expect a bit more improvement since so much of autocross is dependent upon transient resonse.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited October 09, 2003).]

Banzai240
10-09-2003, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I really had to laugh at how quickly Darin gave up his position on the performance advantage of a 15" tire (especially after he thought he did such a good job of proving it) when he realized that he might have just shot himself in the foot. That was priceless Darin, thank you! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif



Again Bill... WTF??? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif I didn't conceed, or give up anything... WHAT position??? I told my side, and let Greg have his... It's called a "Discussion"... You ought to try it sometime... I wasn't telling Greg how he ought to think, or what he should believe...

What do I have to gain by getting into a pissing match with him? What have YOU gained by trying to get in one with ME?? Do you just like the fight??

Greg wants to know what I believe??? Simple. I believe given the same car, Mine would go faster than Geo's! He can run his 14" wheels and no sway-bars, and I'll run 15" wheels and any sway-bar I choose... all else being equal! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif (Sorry George... just couldn't resist...) See... George and I can disagree and still remain peers... It's really OK to do that Bill...

I believe that if 15" wheels were allowed, some would switch, and some wouldn't, but there really wouldn't be that much of a difference in the overall performance of the classes, so the 14" wheels would NOT be obsolete, though, all else being equal (which is RARELY is...) might be at a slight disadvantage... I believe that if you were hell bent on getting to the top, as with EVERYTHING else on your car, you'd likely have to opt for the best tire/wheel combo you had available... I believe...

The reason I let Greg have his is because I've had enough of dragging this shit out for page after page, telling the same story over and over, all for naught... I said what I had to say, and let Greg/George/YOU have yours...

Besides... the more I say, the more you try to find something wrong with it, so I try to be a little selective these days (may be what Greg chooses to call "guyshy"...)

By the way... those Grassroots tests... Did anyone bother to check to see if they adjusted the suspension accordingly to work with the larger diameter tire/wheel combo and the greater "transient response"???

Also, a more stable sidewall means the contact patch is more stable... Basically, the shorter sidewalls won't ROLL OVER onto the sidewalls as easily...

Give up my position....??? PAAALLLLEASSSE...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 09, 2003).]

Jake
10-10-2003, 10:09 AM
This is just getting silly with the personal attacks. There is “debate” and “discussions” and then there is “let’s get so and so”. We can debate all day weather larger or smaller diameter wheels are a competitive advantage, but here’s the deal:

Making a large portion of IT depend on ONE manufacturer for wheels is ridiculous.

BTW – I am one of the ones who need 14x7’s. If we opened up wheel diameter what would I do? Probably nothing, I’m too damn cheap. What could I do?

Buy lightweight 15x7 or 15x6.5 wheels that are readily available from many manufacturers for about $100/each. (a purely economic decision) Or buy 13x7 wheels so I can change my gearing because it’s cheaper than changing the final drive ratio in my transaxle. (again – no more of an advantage to what was allowed already – just saves money)

It’s clear that some people thing that going up in diameter is an advantage – some think going down is an advantage – most think it doesn’t matter - and some even think that sidewall height doesn’t matter (I’m looking forward for those 70 series tires on the track!)

But this is an economic thing - not a performance thing. Will it obsolete people’s wheels? No way. It just makes it cheaper for people who need to buy some.

Jake Fisher ITA #28
www.racerjake.com (http://www.racerjake.com)

Jake
10-10-2003, 10:19 AM
(sorry - double post)

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited October 10, 2003).]

SamITC85
10-10-2003, 11:11 AM
Jake no flame here, just discussion. You say that it won't make anyones wheels obsolete, but I think it will. Take the Glen for instance. If I am in my ITC rabbit on the back straight I am at as fast as the car can go for a large portion of the staright with 13" wheels. Now my competitor in a similiar car with 15" wheels will be able to go at a faster speed for very close to the same amount of time which means I am at a disadvantage. Now to keep up I need to buy new 15" wheels and tires and I will probably not use any of my 16 13" wheels again. You can replace The Glen with NHIS, Lime Rock and especially Pocono. SO this rule will make my wheels obsolete if I want to be competitive.

------------------
Sam Rolfe
TBR Motorsports
#85 ITC VW Rabbit
#85 GP Scirocco on the way
#11 GP Scirocco on the way

oanglade
10-10-2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by SamITC85:
Jake no flame here, just discussion. You say that it won't make anyones wheels obsolete, but I think it will. Take the Glen for instance. If I am in my ITC rabbit on the back straight I am at as fast as the car can go for a large portion of the staright with 13" wheels. Now my competitor in a similiar car with 15" wheels will be able to go at a faster speed for very close to the same amount of time which means I am at a disadvantage.


How come? I mean, how will that car with the 15" wheels be able to go at a faster speed for very close to the same amount of time?

Banzai240
10-10-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by SamITC85:
Now my competitor in a similiar car with 15" wheels will be able to go at a faster speed for very close to the same amount of time which means I am at a disadvantage...

http://www.coloradoscca.org/prodcar/images/smiles/icon_frustrated.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Jake
10-10-2003, 02:49 PM
Sam - thanks for not flaming - and no flame taken. But like others pointed out - why should 15" wheels make you any faster down the back straight at the glen?

Bill Miller
10-10-2003, 06:43 PM
Jake,

I think what Sam is talking about is that the car w/ 15's will have 'longer legs', in much the same way you would if you went to a numerically lower final drive ratio.

Which, by the way, is what I've done in the past. I've had multiple gearboxes w/ different final drives for different tracks. It's easy enough to change on a VW (under 2 hours, R&R by myself), and the trannys are pretty cheap (until you start putting Quaifes in them!). In the case of a VW 020 box (works for all the ITC and ITB cars), there are really only two ratios to choose from, unless you want to spend lots of money (well, some may not think $500 is a lot of money, but I do).

I still contend that if you make 15's openly available to all the IT cars, it will hurt the guys who already have 13's and 14's as the tire mfg's will focus on where the larger market is, and I think you'll be left w/ pretty much the same situation you have w/ wheels now, limited options usually for a premium price.

Darin,

Didn't you make a comment to me a couple of weeks ago about a goat?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

oanglade
10-10-2003, 07:24 PM
"I still contend that if you make 15's openly available to all the IT cars, it will hurt the guys who already have 13's and 14's as the tire mfg's will focus on where the larger market is, and I think you'll be left w/ pretty much the same situation you have w/ wheels now, limited options usually for a premium price."

I think this is going to happen anyway as there are less and less 13 or 14 inch wheels available in the market.

Bill Miller
10-10-2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by oanglade:
"I still contend that if you make 15's openly available to all the IT cars, it will hurt the guys who already have 13's and 14's as the tire mfg's will focus on where the larger market is, and I think you'll be left w/ pretty much the same situation you have w/ wheels now, limited options usually for a premium price."

I think this is going to happen anyway as there are less and less 13 or 14 inch wheels available in the market.

So that's a justification to accelerate the process?



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
10-10-2003, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by SamITC85:
Jake no flame here, just discussion. You say that it won't make anyones wheels obsolete, but I think it will. Take the Glen for instance. If I am in my ITC rabbit on the back straight I am at as fast as the car can go for a large portion of the staright with 13" wheels. Now my competitor in a similiar car with 15" wheels will be able to go at a faster speed for very close to the same amount of time which means I am at a disadvantage. Now to keep up I need to buy new 15" wheels and tires and I will probably not use any of my 16 13" wheels again.

Or, you can just buy larger diameter tires. Hell, you can do that now. There is no spec tire size for each car.

Sorry Sam, this does not hold water.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Knestis
10-10-2003, 09:25 PM
This whole conversation comes about because of market forces - there isn't enough demand across the enthusiast market to support the production of 14" wheels anymore. I'm afraid that I don't agree with Bill M. that taking ITC and ITB cars off of 13 and 14 inch wheels is going to speed up the process: SCCA IT racers are NEVER going to be a large percentage of the wheel-buying public. If they were, these wheels wouldn't be disappearing off of the shelves.

As far as a performance advantage might go, the point about open tire diameters is a good one. We already have lots of options.

However, the idea that a larger diameter package is somehow going to translate into a faster lap time for a low-powered IT car is wishful thinking, intended to support an agenda - "I don't want bigger wheels to be allowed" - rather than grounded in fact. I absolutely do NOT believe that a larger OD package is going to have this effect. I've made the mistake of going to a 205-60 Hoosier bias-ply on a pokey car and discovering that it was faster on 185-60 Goodyears.

Kirk

EDIT - this is a GREAT example of the kind of thing that paralyzes club racing rules decision making. "I will be at a disadvantage (or perceive that I am) and I'm willing to argue my position six ways from Sunday to rationalize my self-serving position," regardless of the logic of any given decision to the overall, long-term health of the class. Just say, "I don't like it because it what's important to me is more important than a healthy, viable class."

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited October 10, 2003).]

Bill Miller
10-10-2003, 10:35 PM
Kirk,

I think you misunderstood my position. My comments were about tires, not about wheels. I agree that racers have little impact on the aftermarket wheel market. I believe that if the wheel diameter rule is opened up to allow those on 13" and 14" wheels to go to 15" wheels, some percentage of those races will make the move due to a perceived advantage. This will reduce the market for 13" and 14" race tires. It is my belief that this will lead to the tire mfg's reducing their offerings in 13" and 14" tires (if not eliminating them).

In that way, I see it as going the way of 13" and 14" wheels. As more options became available (and car mfg's began offer 15" and greater wheels), the market for 13" and subsequently 14" wheels was reduced. This lead to the wheel mfg's reducing or eliminating their offerings in 13" and 14" sizes.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
10-10-2003, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

Didn't you make a comment to me a couple of weeks ago about a goat?

Bill... I have no idea what you are talking about... or even how it might be applicable...
Perhaps if you want to dig that quote up, you can refresh my memory... Not that I really give a rip right now...

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 10, 2003).]

oanglade
10-11-2003, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
So that's a justification to accelerate the process?



It's a justification to offer alternatives as early as possible instead of just sit and wait for things to happen.

Jake
10-11-2003, 04:09 PM
Bill, I get your point - just don't agree. I would actually argue the other way. If wheel diameter was open I think you would find more people using 13" wheels (less unsprung weight, a cheap way to change gearing, and it lowers the car without altering the suspension geometry as much). Ever watch the SP guys at the autocrosses? They are almost all using 13" wheels. That's what pushed Kumho to come out with thier 215/50-13 and 235/45-13 sizes.

Jake
10-11-2003, 04:21 PM
Back to the proposal. What to do about width? I'd really like width open if it fits. Unfortuntaly, this could obsolete ITB and ITC wheel inventories because wheel width IS an advantage. However, if we accept that 13" and 14" race tires are beginning to die and don't allow the B and C guys wider widths - allowing them to buy 15x6" rims which mostly don't exist doesn't really help them much.

Knestis
10-11-2003, 04:33 PM
Sorry, Bill - my 'splaining wasn't too good.

The idea in my head was that I feel like the 13" tire is destined to go the way of the 13" wheel as the enTIRE industry (he-he) gets more and more oriented on larger diameters, regardless of what SCCA does.

K

Geo
10-11-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
Back to the proposal. What to do about width? I'd really like width open if it fits. Unfortuntaly, this could obsolete ITB and ITC wheel inventories because wheel width IS an advantage. However, if we accept that 13" and 14" race tires are beginning to die and don't allow the B and C guys wider widths - allowing them to buy 15x6" rims which mostly don't exist doesn't really help them much.

Despite the fact that opening up widths (as long as they fit under the fender/flare would help me, I'd personally like to see a 7" limit across the board. But, I'm certainly open to what the membership would prefer.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Banzai240
10-11-2003, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
The idea in my head was that I feel like the 13" tire is destined to go the way of the 13" wheel as the enTIRE industry (he-he) gets more and more oriented on larger diameters, regardless of what SCCA does.

K

Thanks Kirk... EXACTLY...!



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Bill Miller
10-12-2003, 01:36 PM
Kirk,

I don't doubt that the 13" DOT race tires will probably go away. The question is, how soon that happens. I see opening up wheels diameters as potentially accelerating that.

Jake,

I understand what you're saying about gearing, but I contend that it's cheaper (and probably more practical) to swap trannys w/ different R&P ratios. Think about how many wheels/tires you currently take to the track for a weekend (not counting wets). I'd say it's fair to assume that it's at least 6, maybe 8. Even at $100/wheel and $125/tire (probably low), you're looking at $1350 just for one different gear ratio. Not to mention the logistics of storing all of those wheels/tires.

I think the implementation of an open wheel rule would be a textbook example of rules creep.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

lateapex911
10-12-2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Kirk,


I think the implementation of an open wheel rule would be a textbook example of rules creep.




I beg to differ.

I think that calling this "rules creep" is just simplifying it with a popular buzzword. I see this as "adaptation", and only those that can adapt can survive.

I think, that in some cases, there are performance advantages, but not too many cars can support a two inch reduction in wheel diameter without running afoul of calipers and tie roads, etc.

And how many ITC or ITB (Or heck, even, my 105hp ITA car) can support taller gearing, and actually see laptime benifits. I would like to see back to back testing, and again, those cases are rare.

As for me. I'm sticking with my 13s, and hoping they support them for a long time, but I know the end is coming.

Now....widths must stay as is. Period.


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Jake
10-12-2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake,

I contend that it's cheaper (and probably more practical) to swap trannys w/ different R&P ratios....

I think the implementation of an open wheel rule would be a textbook example of rules creep.


Bill, you succesfully agrued against yourself. How can it be rules creep if it only enables you to do something that is already legal (changing the final drive ratio) in (as you put it) "a cheaper and more practical" way?

For the record: I carry 5 tires and changing my final drive in the tranny costs at least $1500 in custom cut gears, not to mention that changing the trans is a full day job. For me, changing wheels is a bit more practical.

Geo
10-12-2003, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Now....widths must stay as is. Period.

Well, I would at least argue for a single max width. This would facilitate moving cars between classes where there are currently two different maximum widths.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Bill Miller
10-13-2003, 12:02 AM
Jake (mot Gulick),

First off, please re-read my post. I said that changing the gearing w/ the R&P is the cheaper and more practical way. Second, it's rules creep as it, as both Darin and Jake (Gulick) state, there is some performance advantage. Also, that's pretty much what rules creep is, you get something changed for one reason, but there's a performance benefit to be gained by changing, so you up the ante for everyone.

And, as others have argued, if it costs you $1500 for a custom R&P, maybe you picked the wrong car. I can get 4 different R&P ratios for a VW (3.67, 3.89, 3.94, 4.23) for <$400 each. These are factory VW ratios. And actually, you can get used versions of the fist three ratios for usually between $50 and $100, as they're fairly common.

George,

'facilitate moving a car between classes w/ different widths'??? Just how often do you envision moving a car between classes? If your car gets moved from ITA to ITB (7" to 6" max), sell your old wheels to a fellow ITA racer. If you're going the other way, sell your old wheels to a fellow ITB racer.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

lateapex911
10-13-2003, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake (mot Gulick),

...... If your car gets moved from ITA to ITB (7" to 6" max), sell your old wheels to a fellow ITA racer. If you're going the other way, sell your old wheels to a fellow ITB racer.




What...a fellow ITA racer who has decided to keep his RX-7 in A and not move to B?? Just for giggles, are there any other cars that anyone can think of that use 13 x 7 RX-7 offset and bolt spacing wheels??

Oh, that's right...my fault for choosing the wrong car. seemed like the right car at the time....

Look, I know that I'm not going to B, but there would be problems with moving cars between classes. And that is a fly in the ointment, I bet, as far as the ITAC and the CB are concerned. On one hand, it would be easy to do a re-org if we all ran on the same rim width, but if we were to change rim width, the competitive balance will be destroyed, all the C and B guys will have to go buy sets of wheels, and it will just suck all around.

IF cars get moved down I think the solution is to line item them in the classifications with the max allowable width, with a note in the class by class rules, that allows the A to B cars to retain their width. It's likely that weight changes will be considered and often made to cars moving down class, but changing rim width will make the adjustments even more difficult to get right.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Bill Miller
10-13-2003, 03:17 AM
Just for giggles, are there any other cars that anyone can think of that use 13 x 7 RX-7 offset and bolt spacing wheels??


What about the guys running 1st gen. RX7's in EP? Or possibly guys running SRX7, Pro7, or IT7?

As far as weight adjustments for cars that move classes, I don't recall the Accord getting a weight break when it went from ITB to ITA, and I didn't see anything about the A3 Golf having to add weight for next year when it moves down to ITB.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
10-13-2003, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
As far as weight adjustments for cars that move classes, I don't recall the Accord getting a weight break when it went from ITB to ITA, and I didn't see anything about the A3 Golf having to add weight for next year when it moves down to ITB.

That's because as the rules exist today, there is absolutely no provision for it. PCAs will certainly provide for it.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Banzai240
10-13-2003, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
That's because as the rules exist today, there is absolutely no provision for it.

Actually George... that's NOT true.

I've been researching the current rules on classfications in IT and have found the following:


GCR 17.1.11. Change of Specifications -
Specifications on cars classified for the first time, or reclassified, may be changed on thirty (30) day's notice during the first year of competition if the advanced estimates of performance are grossly inaccurate.

So basically the option is open for the first year after the reclassification, according to the GCR...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Jake
10-13-2003, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake (mot Gulick),
... as both Darin and Jake (Gulick) state, there is some performance advantage...

....And, as others have argued, if it costs you $1500 for a custom R&P, maybe you picked the wrong car....

...your car gets moved from ITA to ITB (7" to 6" max), sell your old wheels to a fellow ITA racer....


First, there is no performance benefit other than the gearing which is already legal to do. It's almost comical that you site Darin's opinion as fact in THIS thread. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

And yes, you're right. I did pick the wrong car.

Selling your wheels is no problem now? How about this: If you don't want to run 13's anymore you can sell them to a cone chaser running in SP. If you aren't aware, 13x7's are in high demand for autocrossers.

Jake
10-13-2003, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
IF cars get moved down I think the solution is to line item them in the classifications with the max allowable width, with a note in the class by class rules, that allows the A to B cars to retain their width. It's likely that weight changes will be considered and often made to cars moving down class, but changing rim width will make the adjustments even more difficult to get right.

Excellent idea. That seems to be the least disruptive solution.

Bill Miller
10-13-2003, 07:09 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">First, there is no performance benefit other than the gearing which is already legal to do</font>

Cool, who ran the test and where was it published?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Jake
10-13-2003, 08:29 PM
Oops - sorry. I meant:

There is no performance benefit...

205/50ZR14 vs. 205/50ZR15 - I honestly don't THINK there is a difference in cornering ability. There's no reason why there should be. The contact patch is the same. The surface area will be the same. The normal force is the same. It's physics my doubtful friend!

Bill Miller
10-13-2003, 10:51 PM
That's the point Jake, maybe there is, and maybe there isn't. But, w/o emperical data, you can't say for sure. And while the cornering forces may be the same w/ your tire example, there are other possibilities. With the greater variety of 15" wheels to choose from, it's entirely possible that you can get 15's that are lighter than 14's. Less unsprung weight, and possibly less rotational mass. I believe it was Darin that said that all else being equal, a 15" wheel will unshroud the brakes more than a 14" wheel.

Minor stuff, but possibly an advantage that could be exploted.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
10-13-2003, 11:00 PM
Yes, and if the sky is falling, all bets are off.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Jake
10-14-2003, 08:46 AM
I've got a better idea. Let's wait until they don't make any 13" or 14" wheels or tires, then we can definately NOT allow cars to use 15"'s because a car with tires is for sure at a competitive advantage to one without. Textbook rules creep!

Bill, you're example is flawed. You state that the larger wheels might be better because of better availablity of wheels and tires. This is circular logic and supports our argument, not yours. (all else being equal 14's are going to lighter than 15's). And there you go again sighting Darin's opinion. Don't get me wrong - I almost always agree with Darin.

Empircal proof to the contrary? Under your logic, monsters must exist because there is no empirical proof that they don't. It doesn't work that way.

Bill Miller
10-14-2003, 05:45 PM
Jake,

How is it circular logic? And, I do agree w/ you, if everything else is the same (design, construction material, construction method, etc.) that yes, a 14" version of that wheel will be lighter than a 15" version of that wheel. However, if you're saying that a 14" wheel will always be lighter than a 15" wheel (both the same width), you're wrong.

You yourself even said it was your opinion that there is no performance benefit to 15" wheels over 14" wheels (gearing notwithstanding). All I said was that you need emperical data to prove it one way or the other. Not sure how that relates to your monster comment???

George,

I guess you just can't help yourself, can you? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Jake
10-14-2003, 08:13 PM
Sorry Bill, I admit I was getting just a little silly there. All I’m saying is that if your argument is: the allowance of larger wheels is a competitive advantage, and my argument is that larger wheels should be allowed because smaller ones have availability problems, you shouldn’t site the unavailability of smaller wheels as the argument for the competitive advantage. I think we agree on the rest of it.

And you are correct, monsters have no place in IT. However, it is not always necessary to prove something with a scientific test to say that it is not true. You’ve been reading Kirk’s posts a little too closely.

Bill Miller
10-14-2003, 08:36 PM
Jake,

I spent almost 13 years working in an R&D setting. The scientific method depends on emperical data.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Jake
10-14-2003, 08:55 PM
I'm all for scientific testing Bill. I work for one of the largest independant automotive testing centers in the world. However, I just think that the burden of proof depends on the view that is contrary to common logic. That's why you can't say Aliens and Monsters exist, just because I can't back up my "opinion" that they don't with scientific studies.

rage_racing
10-15-2003, 06:29 PM
aliens and monsters do exist
my 6 yr old monster and my 10 year old alien ...
should be on ripleys....

anyways my humble opinion is that it sucks that I and others ares stuck with 13 inch tires until someone decides that we no longer are but there is no way that my prelude is gonna beat most of your cars whether I have 13 in wheels or 17 inch wheels.. so to me its all about availability and cost .. and there isnt enough available and the cost is hidious .. just a newb point of view..

racerdave600
10-15-2003, 06:45 PM
It's been interesting reading this post, and it certainly touches on a nerve for many people. As someone who has just completed a car, and waiting for my first school, I can tell you that the wheel issue is a very large concern.

I actually held off buying any this year to wait and see what happens, as I do not wish to spend a small fortune to get 14 by 7's (2 sets) if 15's will be available. Of course, 14 by 7's aren't all that available, I've tried. You have to "wait for a run" if stocks are low.

My point is, people who are looking into building and expanding into the class are at a real disadvantage, not from a performace point of view, but economics and availability. This is an issue whether people here want to acknowlege it or not. It's not a matter of us wanting to be competitive, it's a matter of just getting on the track.

Options are: buy used, not good in my opinion, as I've experienced a wheel failure, or two, spend quite a bit more money ($1,600 to $2,000 depending on what you buy) and wait and wait for your wheels, and then hope that they are not obsolete in a short time when tire issues come about.

There has been quite a bit of talk about Comp. Adj. in IT, and the danger of shrinking class sizes because of it, but from my perspective, the wheel issue is an even greater area of concern. While not a consumable, wheels do not last forever, and sooner or later, even those with 14 by 7's and the like will have to replace them!

As for the argument that 15's are better than 14's etc., this is very car dependant. Right now, the same problems exist, it may change the nature somewhat, but it'll be the same. I've crewed for a professional team for many years, over several different sanctioning bodies (IMSA, Nascar, SCCA, Sportscar), and wheels are always an issue (except Nascar). We were mandated a smaller wheel back in the mid '90s at one point, and the car was faster at some tracks, slower at others, but not a lot either way. It think this part is getting blown out of proportion a bit.

Because of changing aftermarket tastes and trends, I think everyone here would agree that wheel sizes (and tires) are going to eventually have to be delt with. The question is, do we do it sooner than later, and is it something that is going to be forced, or willingly accepted.

Dave

Banzai240
10-15-2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by racerdave600:
It's been interesting reading this post, and it certainly touches on a nerve for many people. As someone who has just completed a car, and waiting for my first school, I can tell you that the wheel issue is a very large concern.

Dave and Others... this type of experience is invaluable in evaluating the need for such changes. PLEASE take the time to write this, either in an e-mail or letter, to the Compboard so more people can hear it. Copy and paste what you have here if that's easier for you, but BE HEARD, officially!

Thanks,




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Geo
10-15-2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by racerdave600:
It's been interesting reading this post, and it certainly touches on a nerve for many people. As someone who has just completed a car, and waiting for my first school, I can tell you that the wheel issue is a very large concern.

I actually held off buying any this year to wait and see what happens, as I do not wish to spend a small fortune to get 14 by 7's (2 sets) if 15's will be available. Of course, 14 by 7's aren't all that available, I've tried. You have to "wait for a run" if stocks are low.

My point is, people who are looking into building and expanding into the class are at a real disadvantage, not from a performace point of view, but economics and availability. This is an issue whether people here want to acknowlege it or not. It's not a matter of us wanting to be competitive, it's a matter of just getting on the track.

Options are: buy used, not good in my opinion, as I've experienced a wheel failure, or two, spend quite a bit more money ($1,600 to $2,000 depending on what you buy) and wait and wait for your wheels, and then hope that they are not obsolete in a short time when tire issues come about.

There has been quite a bit of talk about Comp. Adj. in IT, and the danger of shrinking class sizes because of it, but from my perspective, the wheel issue is an even greater area of concern. While not a consumable, wheels do not last forever, and sooner or later, even those with 14 by 7's and the like will have to replace them!

As for the argument that 15's are better than 14's etc., this is very car dependant. Right now, the same problems exist, it may change the nature somewhat, but it'll be the same. I've crewed for a professional team for many years, over several different sanctioning bodies (IMSA, Nascar, SCCA, Sportscar), and wheels are always an issue (except Nascar). We were mandated a smaller wheel back in the mid '90s at one point, and the car was faster at some tracks, slower at others, but not a lot either way. It think this part is getting blown out of proportion a bit.

Because of changing aftermarket tastes and trends, I think everyone here would agree that wheel sizes (and tires) are going to eventually have to be delt with. The question is, do we do it sooner than later, and is it something that is going to be forced, or willingly accepted.

Dave

Dave, I rarely quote a post in its entirety, but yours just deserves to be repeated.

I plead with you to write the same thing to the CB. Your post is extremely articulate and I think it has potential to bring more serious debate on this issue within the ITAC and the CB. Please write. I support everything you said 100%. I'm sure Darin and Andy would support you as well. This is a serious issue in the club and you address it extemely well.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited October 15, 2003).]

Bill Miller
10-16-2003, 06:18 AM
Guys, IIRC, it was this same kind of 'availability' arguement that got things like billet cranks allowed in Production. I still say that this is a textbook example of rules creep.

I'm curious as to how many of the cars in ITA and ITS came stock w/ 7" wide wheels?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Knestis
10-16-2003, 07:43 AM
We need the IT historians** to check into the details but, Bill has jogged my memory...

It's my recollectiont that the allowance for 7" wheels in ITA does NOT date back to the creation of the category: Originally, only S cars were allowed 7" wheels.

That aside Dave's letter does an admirable job of explaining the big-picture rationale for a change. Unfortunately, it's historically the hundreds of very small-picture "I'm afraid my competitiveness will be compromised" rationales that drive these decisions.

K

** Seriously - this would be a great idea: Someone with a collection of all of the GCRs going back to the beginning of the category!

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited October 16, 2003).]

Greg Amy
10-16-2003, 08:22 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...Someone with a collection of all of the GCRs going back to the beginning of the category!</font>

Don't forget that the category specs, like ITCS, were sold boks separately-bound from the GCR. It wasn't until the early-90s that it all came in one book (except for those of us lucky enough to snag a copy of the double-super-secret large-print versions used by Tech personnel; those were all bound into one book starting around 1989, I think.)

Greg

tderonne
10-16-2003, 12:16 PM
I'm curious as to how many of the cars in ITA and ITS came stock w/ 7" wide wheels?

[/B]


ITB Mustangs did. But they have to run 6" of course. Different chapter, same book?

racerdave600
10-16-2003, 12:41 PM
Thanks George,

I actually did sit down last night and send an e-mail off to the CB, not only on the wheel issues, but also on Comp. Adjustments.

The wheel issue is something I've been struggling with for about 2 months now, so I suppose I have a stake in its outcome. I also think that unless you're maxed out in car prep and driver development, the size difference is not the factor that most people think. In fact, it will probably hurt more cars than help to go up an inch if anything. What you gain in turn-in, you'll lose in final drive in most cases, but I really do not want to jump into this argument.

Thanks again,

Dave

Bill Miller
10-16-2003, 07:49 PM
Tim,

That's essentially the same battle some of the ITS guys fought for the cars that came w/ 16" wheels.

Gotta admit, seems odd that you can't use the stock wheels that came on the car.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
10-16-2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Tim,

That's essentially the same battle some of the ITS guys fought for the cars that came w/ 16" wheels.

Bill,
Just curious as the what "battle" you are referring to? Is it the 2nd Gens plight to get 16" wheels approved? I ask because there was no battle at all to get the 16" spec'd for the '95-'97 240SX... I asked them what they needed, they told me, I sent it in, they were approved and published. The only case where I can see that they might NOT be approved is one where they were not truely a factory piece, but instead a dealer installed option or something from a special package... Interesting... Just chaulk it up to another inconsistancy if this was truely not the case, because the way I read the rules, if they were an option for the model classified (that's a big piece there, because there is a difference if say the "SE" model is classed as opposed to a standard non-"SE" model...) they should be legal...

If it were my car and I wanted them and had the appropriate documentation... I'd write until I got what was appropriate...




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Knestis
10-17-2003, 08:03 AM
Great example of a problem in the process (or non-process) applied to IT rules making...

There is no guideline or precedent for how to address the question of 16" wheels in a class that (implicitly) presumes the maximum that would ever appear are 15s. In one case - grounded in a particular context and time - the allowance of 16" wheels was seen to be a problem and were disallowed: In the second, the time and context were different so they WERE allowed.

In both cases, the action was a de facto competition adjustment because the allowance/disallowance was made based on perceptions of what would happen to affected models' competitiveness.

K

Banzai240
10-17-2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
In both cases, the action was a de facto competition adjustment because the allowance/disallowance was made based on perceptions of what would happen to affected models' competitiveness.

K

Oh, I doubt it very seriously... Wasn't the RX-7 issue (and this is not based on any knowledge really whatso-ever http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif ) a case of inability to discern which models the 16" wheels came on and which model was actually classified? If the 16" wheels were only available on the GTU model, and the model classified is the standard not-GTU model, then 16" wheels would not be allowed per the existing rules... For the Nissan, the model classified is the model that came with 16" wheels, so it's a no-brainer.

I submit that if the proper documentation exists, then the rules will be followed. I doubt anyone worried about whether allowing 16" wheels on the 240SX, or the Porsche, or ??? was going to rock the "competition" boat...

Of course... that's just my take... I could be wrong... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Joe Harlan
10-17-2003, 11:12 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">If the 16\" wheels were only available on the GTU model, and the model classified is the standard not-GTU model,</font>

If it is the base model that's classified then they should have the brake either then should they?

Knestis
10-17-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
... I doubt anyone worried about whether allowing 16" wheels on the 240SX, or the Porsche, or ??? was going to rock the "competition" boat...

Actually absolutely believe that this WAS the case, given the competititiveness of each example when each question came up.

Problem is that we will never know because (a) there is no establshed procedure for making this kind of decision, and (B) there is no requirement that records documenting decisions be kept.

K

Banzai240
10-17-2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
...there is no establshed procedure for making this kind of decision...

There ARE established RULES for making this type of decision, and the "procedure" is to follow the rules...

ITCS 17.1.4.A. PURPOSE-
...cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to the manufacture's specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules."

ITCS 17.1.4.C. SPECIFICATIONS- ...it is not permitted to "create" a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies... (i.e.: GTU calipers/wheels/etc. on an NON-GTU car...)

ITCS 17.1.4.D.7. WHEELS/TIRES
All other cars shall retain the wheel diameter fitted as original equipment for their make, model, and type.

Was the "model", as specified, orinally equiped with 16" wheels? Don't know about the specifics of the 2nd Gen RX-7, but I do know about the 240SX and the Porsche, and the answer is YES, it was...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 17, 2003).]

Bill Miller
10-17-2003, 04:49 PM
Ok Darin, what about the ITB Mustangs that came stock w/ 7" wide wheels? How come they can't run them?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
10-17-2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Ok Darin, what about the ITB Mustangs that came stock w/ 7" wide wheels? How come they can't run them?


ITCS 17.1.4.D.7.a.1 WHEELS/TIRES
All other cars shall retain the wheel diameter fitted as original equipment for their make, model, and type. ...

ITCS 17.1.4.D.7.a.6 WHEELS/TIRES
Maximum allowable rim widths: classes ITS and ITA - seven (7) inches; classes ITB and ITC - six (6) inches.

Because the rules say they can't...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

Geo
10-17-2003, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Gotta admit, seems odd that you can't use the stock wheels that came on the car.

That's what I say. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

I want to use the 15x8 Fuchs that came on my 944. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

But, I won't argue for it. Not in the best interest of IT.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

lateapex911
10-17-2003, 06:46 PM
If this was showroom stock, I could see the width staying the same as stock. But in an effort to create parity within a structure, and as wheel width is one of the greatest factors affecting handling and cornering power, the organizers have limited ALL cars in a class to one wheel width, which removes a huge variable, and makes it easier to achieve parity. If the 944 were to have wider rims, it would, all other things being equal, be able to corner better than the RX-7, for example. Now, to equilize the performance, do you add more weight? How much? I can see the desire to just eliminate that question altogether.

And I don't see the smaller diameter (than the model came with, if that is indeed the case) as a defacto competition adjustment per se', as Kirk says, as it was done in the classification procedure. If it were to be changed after classification then sure, I'd cry foul. (Just as the relaxed ECU rule was, without doubt, a competiton adjustment, whether intentional or not).

I think it's important to understand that all cars classified are 'competiton adjusted' before they ever set tire to the track. But technically it's not a "competition adjustment" as it isn't made as a result of competition inequities. Maybe it would be a good idea to call it a "Performance potential equilization" to describe the spec setting procedure done during classification, and a PCA if done after classification, as a result of perceived mistakes made during that classification period. If all the attributes aren't accounted for properly at the start, we are all stuck with the result.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Bill Miller
10-17-2003, 07:59 PM
Darin,

I know that's what the rule says. Doesn't mean it's a good rule. Why shouldn't a classified car be allowed to run stock parts that came on it?

Jake,

I'd buy that, except that there are several places in the ITCS where it says "unless fitted as original equipment".

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Joe Harlan
10-21-2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

I know that's what the rule says. Doesn't mean it's a good rule. Why shouldn't a classified car be allowed to run stock parts that came on it?

Jake,

I'd buy that, except that there are several places in the ITCS where it says "unless fitted as original equipment".




Bill, it is because SCCA has alway had this long standing thought that wheel diameter and rim width will equalize competition.....(wrong as it may be) the rules are designed to keep cars running on similar tires..

The Sleeper
11-16-2003, 06:34 AM
Greetings Gentlemen, I think it was proposed earlier in this thread to allow you to change to the largest rim size allowed on any vehicle in your class if you so desired. I think this would be the way to go, not an across the board rule change but class spacific. I do not know the spec`s for the other IT classes but I know in ITS there are cars allowed to run 16`s so the whole class should be allowed to run 16`s if so desired. For all the other classes the max. rim size should be set to the vehicle with the largest rim size allowed in that class,if so desired. Alot of good pro`s and con`s have been stated in this thread, but I for one know that a race of this type is won or lost in the cornering speed attained by a vehicle, not so much as the straight line speed. Alot of the tire/wheel decision is also dependent on the driver style hence trailing brake or american driving style can corner just as fast with an 1" shorter sidewall as with an 1" taller sidewall because the tire load is linear though the entire corner aspect, whereas the european style or dirt track style as we call it here demands a firmer sidewall to control the added load applied on the tires. This is not an agrument that one style of driving is better then the other it is just my observations and what works best for me.

jc836
11-16-2003, 12:29 PM
I already requested the change based onj the fact that the CB had approved 15" wheels for the CRX in Production-that one got shot down. Would I join a large vote in favor-absolutely. It is not a competitive advantage when they can weigh more and a limitation on width and tire size can be imposed. I think the idea is sound considering the cost of competition today. If anything we should be looking to stabilize it for IT. The way to get there is to have more wheel and tire company choices.

------------------
Grandpa's toys-modded suspensions and a few other tweaks
'89 CRX Si-SCCA ITA #99
'99 Prelude=a sweet song
'03 Dodge Dakota Club Cab V8-Patriot Blue gonna tow

Geo
11-16-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by jc836:
Would I join a large vote in favor-absolutely.


We need people to keep writing the CB about this if there is any chance for it to fly.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Jake
11-19-2003, 11:20 AM
FYI: On of my four Revolution RFX 14x7 wheels got busted up in a crash at a race a few weeks ago. Since that wheel is no longer produced, I called about ordering Panasports. Apparently, the Ultralight’s spokes hit the brakes of the 87-89 Toyota MR2, so that’s out too. Is this a reason to allow alternative sizes? My only other choice is to get 14x6 wheels or have wheels custom made at a cost of at least $1000/set. I’m trying to get my broke wheel repaired – not only is that more expensive than buying a new 15x7 wheel, but it’s probably not as safe to race on.

Bill Miller
11-19-2003, 08:20 PM
Jake,

I had 14x7 Panasports on my old ITA MR2. I think it was an '86 though.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Jake
11-19-2003, 09:49 PM
Thanks Bill,

Yeah, they'll fit the early cars ok. I actaully bought a set of Miata Alloy wheels off a guy with abn 86 MR2 that used them. The wouldn't work on my 87, and I had to resell the wheels. Same deal.

Jake
11-19-2003, 09:50 PM
Word is spreading. Good poll over here:

http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=682688

oanglade
11-19-2003, 11:36 PM
How many letters does it take for this to be put on an agenda?

Does multiple letters from the same person count?

It's cheaper for me to get memberships for my neighbors and buying some 15x7s than buying a set of 14x7s.

http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Bill Miller
11-20-2003, 12:51 AM
Jake,

Is that because all the later cars had the SC brakes? I seem to remember something along that line.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
11-20-2003, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by oanglade:
How many letters does it take for this to be put on an agenda?

As far as I know... a single letter is enough to get things rolling...

Quite frankly, if you guys see the need for something like this, you'd better get a BIG voice and start writing. It's tough to ignore a LOT of letters with a common opinion/goal.

DJ

Jake
11-20-2003, 10:16 AM
Bill, all 87-89 MR2's have larger rotors calipers than the early models. When the SC came in 88, they didn't use any different brake hardware. (sorry to hijack my own thread)

Knestis
11-20-2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by oanglade:
How many letters does it take for this to be put on an agenda? ...

If ONE member makes an official request for a rules change, that should be enough to get it considered.

K

Eric Parham
11-20-2003, 10:19 PM
If wheel diameter was allowed up to a size like 15 or maybe 16-inch, that might actually save money for competitors. But, the truth is that making wheel diameter free would allow the already front-running higher hp cars to fill in their weaknesses with better handling, better cooling 19" wheels (for example) at extreme expense. Is that really what we're after?

The lower hp better handling cars would benefit MUCH less (if at all). Get it? No one that I know of in B or C is truely having any trouble finding 6" rims. That might be slightly different for the S and A folks limited to 13s (how many of those are there?) and 14s (to a lesser extent) at 7" width. IMHO, that's part of the bargain that we knowingly signed onto in order to run in Improved Touring.

I guess I might even support an increase up to 15" in order to encourage newcomers (even though it would make my stash of 30-40 14-inch wheels and rubber virtually worthless), but I think that anything greater than 15" would be a mistake.

Geo
11-20-2003, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by Eric Parham:
If wheel diameter was allowed up to a size like 15 or maybe 16-inch, that might actually save money for competitors. But, the truth is that making wheel diameter free would allow the already front-running higher hp cars to fill in their weaknesses with better handling, better cooling 19" wheels (for example) at extreme expense.

Would it really? I for one sincerely doubt it. I don't think there is an IT car in the paddock that would benefit from 19" wheels. For that matter, I don't believe there is an IT car in the paddock that would benefit from 17" wheels. They might feel better, but given the same width, will probably corner about the same and the larger wheels will kill acceleration.


Originally posted by Eric Parham:
I guess I might even support an increase up to 15" in order to encourage newcomers (even though it would make my stash of 30-40 14-inch wheels and rubber virtually worthless), but I think that anything greater than 15" would be a mistake.

OK, a couple of points here. First is do we value your stash above the cost of custom wheels (or even Panasports) to a new competitor or even one who has to replace broken wheels?

Second, on the limit of 15" wheels, there are already cars approved for 16" wheels and as later model cars are classified, even larger diamter wheels will be allowed.

Third, the fact is there is only one source beyond cu$tom wheels (Panasport). Is this something we want for the club? I think not. IMHO it's time this rule is changed to reflect contemporary aftermarket realities.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
11-20-2003, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
If ONE member makes an official request for a rules change, that should be enough to get it considered.

K

Absolutely.

But, a groundswell of support (or non-support) of an issue may sway CB and ITAC members.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Eric Parham
11-21-2003, 12:34 AM
George, all good comments. But also remember that technology marches on. The added weight of the larger wheels will be less in the future (or for more $$$ now), and lower profile tires (again more $$$, even compared to Panasports) could mean no increase in overall diameter.

IMHO, minimizing sidewall flex and contact patch squirm will ALWAYS increase ultimate cornering grip, even if it's harder to set up and drive. So I'll stand by my original comment that the larger wheels (even 19") WILL increase the handling potential of many IT cars, in time.

[This message has been edited by Eric Parham (edited November 20, 2003).]

Geo
11-21-2003, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by Eric Parham:
IMHO, minimizing sidewall flex and contact patch squirm will ALWAYS increase ultimate cornering grip....

I disagree. I will not. What the sidewall flex and contact patch squirm will affect is the feel and some transient response.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Banzai240
11-21-2003, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
I disagree. I will not. What the sidewall flex and contact patch squirm will affect is the feel and some transient response.

Hey George... WANNA RACE??? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

DJ

Greg Amy
11-21-2003, 08:14 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">We need people to keep writing the CB about this...</font>

Somehow, it's hard to get all worried about the diameter of our wheels when we're competing against BMWs and RX-7s with four-cylinder front wheel drive cars.

The cars that a change such as this would affect most have a lot more important things to write the Competition Board about than whether or not we can use 15" diameter wheels. Save your letters and complaints for stuff that will actually make a freakin' difference.

Frustrated in Connecticut

Knestis
11-21-2003, 10:11 AM
It strikes me that this issue is really driven by the lack of wide, small diameter wheels. There are enough 14x6 4x100 alloy wheels in the world for the forseeable future since they were a common OEM size but ask for a 7" wide version and - poof - nothinng.

Make ITA cars run on a maximum of 6" width and a large part of the problem goes away.(Remember that's how it actually was not so long ago so I'm only kidding a little bit.) Allow ITC cars with 13s to step up to 14x6 and their options expand.

Conversations about 19-inch wheels simply aren't germain. The point from the outset has been cost and - seriously, this time - a simple allowance for a +1 diameter increase over the ITCS specline wheel size WILL address the issue and WILL NOT be a major applecart upsetter.

K

Banzai240
11-21-2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
...a simple allowance for a +1 diameter increase over the ITCS specline wheel size WILL address the issue and WILL NOT be a major applecart upsetter.

K

I would agree...

DJ

Allen Brown
11-21-2003, 11:09 AM
I've been following this thread for quite some time. And it seems the biggest concern is that allowing a larger diameter wheel (while maintaining same existing width) is going to change the race results. I have to say there is an extrememly low chance of that happening.

I run 14x6 w/225-50-14 (RA-1)and 15x7 w/225-45-15 (Ecsta). This summer on the same day, my best time was using the 14x6, by .2 sec. Yes, the driver can more than make up that small difference since I'm starting to get consistant, but still have a lot to learn. I do agree the 15x7 feel better at turn-in. I believe this due to the shorter sidewall, but that didn't amount to any advantage.

As stated before, each vehicle will respond slightly different to the change....but I haven't seen any improvement in times.

Geo
11-21-2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Hey George... WANNA RACE??? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

DJ

Sure.

Come down to Texas tomorrow. I'll be at TWS. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
11-21-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
It strikes me that this issue is really driven by the lack of wide, small diameter wheels. There are enough 14x6 4x100 alloy wheels in the world for the forseeable future since they were a common OEM size but ask for a 7" wide version and - poof - nothinng.

Amen. I'd like to see the club/CB/ITAC address this before there are absolutely no 14x7 wheels available new except for crazy expensive custom wheels. That just does not fit the whole concept of IT racing IMHO. The only 14x7 wheels available new at this time are already 3x the price of what I can pick up new 15x7 for.


Originally posted by Knestis:
Conversations about 19-inch wheels simply aren't germain. The point from the outset has been cost and - seriously, this time - a simple allowance for a +1 diameter increase over the ITCS specline wheel size WILL address the issue and WILL NOT be a major applecart upsetter.

I think this is viable, although I still thin the fear of larger wheels is based purely in non-fact-based ideas and beliefs that just keep being retold from one person to another.

FWIW, even if we allow +1 (which would allow me 17" wheels) I'd still race on the 15" wheels on my 944. The larger wheels wouldn't be worth the money to me since I don't believe they would increase performance.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Eric Parham
11-21-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
The point from the outset has been cost and - seriously, this time - a simple allowance for a +1 diameter increase over the ITCS specline wheel size WILL address the issue and WILL NOT be a major applecart upsetter.

Makes sense to me.

RacerBill
11-21-2003, 01:57 PM
I agree that a solution should be developed that would lower costs and at the same time be as fair as possible to all. Shoot me now, because I really don't have a suggestion at this time. I do know that no matter what, everyone is not going to be completely happy.

I am replying to this thread to mention that on this forum, in the Tech Center, there is an article that attempts to answer some of the questions raised here - do larger diameter tires handle better? Please read the article and reply. I would love to hear other opinions of the results.

Speed Raycer
11-21-2003, 02:16 PM
1"?????? Oh great! Now all the 1st gen RX7 guys have the option to go out and buy 14x7 wheels http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif I'd be for limits of at least +2" or maximum of +3"

------------------
Scott
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/rudder_racing/images/RX7_Pictures/SRsRX/SRsRX7.jpg

Geo
11-21-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Speed Raycer:
1"?????? Oh great! Now all the 1st gen RX7 guys have the option to go out and buy 14x7 wheels http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif I'd be for limits of at least +2" or maximum of +3"



Therein lies the difficult part of limiting sizes. Do you set a size? 15"? 16"? Now we are not accomodating cars that will be classified in the future that come with larger diameter wheels.




------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Jake
11-21-2003, 02:51 PM
How about this (taken from GCR)

17.1.4.7.a.1

Currently:

Cars originally equipped with twelve (12) inch wheels may fit thirteen (13) inch wheels.

Change to:

Cars originally equipped with twelve (12), thirteen (13), or fourteen (14) inch wheels may fit larger wheel diameters up to fifteen (15) inches.

Greg Amy
11-21-2003, 02:52 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> Do you set a size?</font>

You guys are making this far too difficult. What's the stated problem? Finding 14x7 wheels? What's the solution? Same as what we did decades ago for 12 inch wheels:

GCR 17.1.4.D.7.a.1:

Cars originally equipped with twelve (12) inch wheels may fit thirteen (13) inch wheels. Cars originally equipped with metric 365 wheels may fit fourteen (14) or fifteeen (15) inch wheels and cars originally equipped with metric 390 wheels may fit fifteen (15) inch wheels. ITS and ITA cars originally equipped with fourteen (14) inch wheels may fit fifteen (15) inch wheels. All other cars shall retain the wheel diameter fitted as original equipment for their make, model, and type. Knockoff/quickchange type wheels are prohibited. Wheels must be made of metal.


Ask for input from the membership, use those calculus skills to tally it up. Make decision regardless of input. Give it a thumbs-up or down.

See? Easy.

Jake
11-21-2003, 02:55 PM
Great minds think alike. (and at the same time) http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Eric Parham
11-21-2003, 02:59 PM
Okay, I see.

The problem here is that there are truly several motivations for this rule change (one or more applying to each competitor), and a few more against it.

The "for" are:

1. Buy new but inexpensive wheels.

2. Run larger wheels to increase performance.

3. Have a choice of wheels to change gearing.

The "against" are:

4. Giant wheels are too expensive.

5. Giant wheels are too fast.

6. Giant wheels require expensive tires.

7. ANY change will cost me money.

Did I miss any?

Considering that 15" wheels are currently both the cheapest and the most available, would many people object to the following rule?

Allow cars running anything less than 15" to run *up* to 15". Allow cars running anything more than 15" to run *down* to 15". Allow cars running exactly 15 to run +/- 1" (i.e., 14"-16").

Eric Parham
11-21-2003, 03:07 PM
Oh, and did I forget to mention that 15x6 are already getting hard to find for some applications (most aftermarket are at least 6.5 or 7" wide)... so...

Geo
11-21-2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Eric Parham:
Okay, I see.

The problem here is that there are truly several motivations for this rule change (one or more applying to each competitor)


Not in my case because any change in this rule (diameters only, not widths) will not affect me. I can already use 15" or 16" wheels per the ITCS (BTW I will use 15").


Originally posted by Eric Parham:
2. Run larger wheels to increase performance.

I won't deny that some people will try this because they think it will increase performance. Personally, I think they should knock themselves out because it will be a futile effort and keep them chasing the wrong thing. It won't make them faster.


Originally posted by Eric Parham:
3. Have a choice of wheels to change gearing.

This is silly. Wheels don't change gearing. Tires do.


Originally posted by Eric Parham:
4. Giant wheels are too expensive.

Well, again, if my competitor decides to chase this instead of something that will make him or her faster, I don't care.


Originally posted by Eric Parham:
5. Giant wheels are too fast.

People used to think the world was flat too.


Originally posted by Eric Parham:
6. Giant wheels require expensive tires.


See number 4.


Originally posted by Eric Parham:
7. ANY change will cost me money.

Won't cost me anything. Again, I already have a choice. I only continue to point this out because I'm pushing this rule change and it does not affect me. I think it's for the good of the club.


Originally posted by Eric Parham:
Did I miss any?

Nope. Those are pretty much the perceptions out there.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

dickita15
11-21-2003, 06:21 PM
let's just move jake's mr2 to ITB where it belongs. I assume you cam still buy 14x6".

Jake
11-21-2003, 07:15 PM
YES!! I've already got a set picked out! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

The Sleeper
11-27-2003, 02:34 PM
This rule can be made as complex as a lawyer`s will, or as simple as a letter to a friend. I prefer the latter. Does anybody remember the KISS principle?

Min and Max rim sizes for each class shall be based on the cars allowed in your class. If car brand X is allowed 13" wheels and car XX is allowed 14" then all cars in this class can run any rim dia from 13" to 14". Naturally this would vary from class to class.
The slip ratio of a tire is influenced by the sidwall`s flex thus a shorter aspect ratio or shorter sidewall will flex less thus reducing the tires slip ratio. True you may not be able to notice the difference because of the limited mods we are allowed to do in IT. But if you take 10 of those small limited items that seem to small to bother with or to waste your time with and put them together, humm all of a sudden you might just be quicker then you were before.
Just food for thought...Have a happy Thanksgiving......

Geo
11-27-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by The Sleeper:
This rule can be made as complex as a lawyer`s will, or as simple as a letter to a friend. I prefer the latter. Does anybody remember the KISS principle?

Min and Max rim sizes for each class shall be based on the cars allowed in your class. If car brand X is allowed 13" wheels and car XX is allowed 14" then all cars in this class can run any rim dia from 13" to 14". Naturally this would vary from class to class.


Doesn't sound like KISS to me. KISS would be any diameter and set a max width.


Originally posted by The Sleeper:
The slip ratio of a tire is influenced by the sidwall`s flex thus a shorter aspect ratio or shorter sidewall will flex less thus reducing the tires slip ratio.

Sorry, but that's wrong (excluding extremely tall sidewalls where the sidewall becomes part of the contact patch - this shouldn't be happening with any race cars). The flex of the sidewall will delay the set the tire takes and thus reduces some transient response, but will not increase the slip angles.

If you put the same contact patch on the ground and are using all the tread and none of the sidewall, grip will be the same.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Jake
11-27-2003, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
KISS would be any diameter and set a max width

Yup. That's basically the same conclusion on the Honda Tech Poll:

Online Poll » Results

up to a max size per class (80%, 16 votes)

allow 1 inch upsize from current rules / all classes (15%, 3 votes)

keep current rules (5%, 1 votes)

allow 2 inch upsize from current rules / all classes (0%, 0 votes)

17 inch max / all classes (0%, 0 votes)

don't care (0%, 0 votes)

other (0%, 0 votes)

The Sleeper
11-27-2003, 05:02 PM
"Orginally posted by Geo"
Sorry, but that's wrong (excluding extremely tall sidewalls where the sidewall becomes part of the contact patch - this shouldn't be happening with any race cars). The flex of the sidewall will delay the set the tire takes and thus reduces some transient response, but will not increase the slip angles.

If you put the same contact patch on the ground and are using all the tread and none of the sidewall, grip will be the same.


Hummm interesting. Well since I am new here and unknown, I must prove my point. From a respected book and author.
Tire Slip Angle
"Design characteristics that affect tire slip angles are, tire compound, cord bias angle, cord material, ASPECT RATIO, SIDEWALL HEIGHT VERSUS THREAD WIDTH..etc"
What this means a tire with the same thread width with a 4" sidewall will have a larger slip ratio then a tire with a 2" sidewall. And the higher the slip ratio the slower corner entry speed and steady state corning speed will be..

tderonne
11-27-2003, 06:07 PM
The less give in the sidewall, the better the camber control (of the car/suspension) must be.

Struts have inherently bad camber control. A higher aspect tire CAN help keep more tire on the ground.

Just one more thing to think about.

Jake
11-27-2003, 09:42 PM
People - we're talking about wheel diameter here! Not aspect ratio. I don't care if you run a 205/50-13,14,15,16, or 17 - you are going to have the same contact patch, squirm angle, tread displacement, friction yaw, and whatever technical term you come up with! Don't forget, 45 series tires are availble in 13's as well. Yes, you do get taller gearing when you use those 17's on your 100hp IT car, but a fail to see that as an advantage.

Knestis
11-27-2003, 11:06 PM
But Jake, you ruin the fun if you force people to argue about just one aspect of a change. It makes it WAY harder to push a particular agenda...

K

The Sleeper
11-28-2003, 03:35 AM
OK Jake here is an example of what I am trying to explain:
P205/55ZR14 thread width 8" approx Dia 22.8" Circ 71.5"
compared to
P225/45ZR15 thread width 8.6" approx Dia 22.8" Circ 71.6"
In this example you have gained .6" thread width, Dia is the same and Circ is .1" larger and you just lost 1" of sidewall flex thus a smaller slip angle which will result in higher corner entry speed and higher steady state cornering speed. Since the Dia and Circ are withen .1" of each other your gear ratio has not been altered all you have done is increase your performance. The same thing can be done going from 15" to 16" rims, the only deterent to this is the increase in unsprung weight, but that is a steady given aspect not varieing such as turnin ratios or corner aspects, so I will gladly trade in a bit of unsprung weight for improved slip ratios. Oh and the above spec`s came from Hoosier`s web site. I am not trying to agrue with anyone just bringing forth knowledge and the facts to back it up.

Greg Amy
11-28-2003, 08:07 AM
A bit disingenuous isn't it, comparing 205/55-14 to 225/45-15? Try the same study again, comparing 205/55-14 to 205/55-15...

Geo
11-28-2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by The Sleeper:
In this example you have gained .6" thread width, Dia is the same and Circ is .1" larger and you just lost 1" of sidewall flex thus a smaller slip angle which will result in higher corner entry speed and higher steady state cornering speed.

<snip>

I am not trying to agrue with anyone just bringing forth knowledge and the facts to back it up.

I hope no one is really trying to argue here. For my part, I have no dog in this hunt. I would like to know the book and the author you are referencing.

Also, even if the slip angles are higher (slightly), that does not mean the overall grip is less. Some tires already like more slip angle than others at maximum grip. Slip angle is not necessarily an indicator of road holding.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited November 28, 2003).]

oanglade
11-28-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by The Sleeper:
OK Jake here is an example of what I am trying to explain:
P205/55ZR14 thread width 8" approx Dia 22.8" Circ 71.5"
compared to
P225/45ZR15 thread width 8.6" approx Dia 22.8" Circ 71.6"
In this example you have gained .6" thread width, Dia is the same and Circ is .1" larger and you just lost 1" of sidewall flex thus a smaller slip angle which will result in higher corner entry speed and higher steady state cornering speed. Since the Dia and Circ are withen .1" of each other your gear ratio has not been altered all you have done is increase your performance. The same thing can be done going from 15" to 16" rims, the only deterent to this is the increase in unsprung weight, but that is a steady given aspect not varieing such as turnin ratios or corner aspects, so I will gladly trade in a bit of unsprung weight for improved slip ratios. Oh and the above spec`s came from Hoosier`s web site. I am not trying to agrue with anyone just bringing forth knowledge and the facts to back it up.


Why would you compare a 205/55-14 with a 225/45-15?

You can run any tire width/aspect ratio right now, so you should compare the 225/45-15 with a 225/50-14

Then, the only "advantage" that you get is .4 inch less sidewall (if you assume that this is not traded off by weight difference) and this means that you drive the car a little bit differently, but it would not make the 14" tire/wheel combo obsolete for those that already have them.

------------------
Ony

The Sleeper
11-28-2003, 12:57 PM
Here you go Greg:
P205/55ZR14 thread width 8" approx. dia 22.8 circ. 71.5

versus

P205/50ZR15 thread width 8" approx. dia 22.8 circ. 71.6
same thread width same dia .1" difference in circ. Less sidewall flex improved slip ratio.
I did the earlier comparison to show gaining an 1/2 in thread and loosing 1" of sidewall flex was possible without any ill affects or changes in final gear ratios.

Geo> Steve smith pubs. Formula car Technology by howdy holmes and don alexander.

oanglade
11-28-2003, 02:00 PM
All you are doing is changing the optimum slip angle for the tire, not increasing traction.

You change the shape of the slip angle vs. lateral acceleration curve, the angle value where the peak is, but not the level of the peak itself. The peak of the curve is a function of the tire compound.

This translates into the tire needing to be driven differently to get the most out of it. It does not mean that a tire with a lower profile will have achieve higher lateral acceleration than another tire of the same compound.


From "Performance Handling" by Don Alexander (pg.28):
"The aspect ratio has little direct effect on traction. The aspect ratio does affect the slip angle, however. A lower profile tire is usually stiffer, and operates at a lower slip angle for the same load and cornering force. Assuming the tire contact patch stays the same, the lower aspect ratio tire will operate at a lower slip angle under the same load and cornering conditions. This will affect the handling balance if the aspect ratio is changed at only one end of the vehicle."

Then, on page 34:

"As sidewall stiffness increases, the tire contact patch can generate the same cornering force at a smaller slip angle. Since it takes less time for the tire to reach a smaller slip angle, the tire than can generate a given cornering force at a lower slip angle will be more responsive...

...a lower aspect ratio almost always increases sidewall stiffness. HIGER TIRE PRESSURES ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING (emphasis is mine). Both will improve responsiveness."


------------------
Ony

The Sleeper
11-28-2003, 07:00 PM
Ony, you are confirming what I have been saying here:
"As sidewall stiffness increases, the tire contact patch can generate the same cornering force at a smaller slip angle. Since it takes less time for the tire to reach a smaller slip angle, ""the tire that can generate a given cornering force at a lower slip angle will be more responsive""...

The aspect ratio is one of the factors that affects the coefficient of friction, there are others. And while you can adjust the, let me rephrase that you can cheat the aspect ratio by running more air (to try to achieve a stiffer sidewall)but then you open another ball of wax.
If in the examples I have given both showing the same approx dia and the circ only being .1" different but loosing 1" of sidewall therefore decreasing the slip ratio without having to resort to playing the air game, use the air to adjust what it is ment to do.

Geo
11-28-2003, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by The Sleeper:
Ony, you are confirming what I have been saying here:
"As sidewall stiffness increases, the tire contact patch can generate the same cornering force at a smaller slip angle. Since it takes less time for the tire to reach a smaller slip angle, ""the tire that can generate a given cornering force at a lower slip angle will be more responsive""...

The aspect ratio is one of the factors that affects the coefficient of friction, there are others.

Not exactly. I think you missed the point. I'm NOT throwing stones, but trying to get us all on the same page.

The aspect ratio does not affect the coefficient of friction. It affects the slip angle. They are decidedly not the same. Higher slip angles most certainly do not mean lower grip (in and of itself). As I said, some tires operate at higher slip angles than others. That doesn't necessarily mean more or less grip.

If you separate the two concepts you'll be on the right track.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Jake
11-28-2003, 08:43 PM
Again, wrong argument. It doesn't matter what shorter sidewall height does or does not do. If we allow Joe Blow to replace his 225/45ZR13's with 225/45ZR15's it doesn't change the sidewall height. Your example using 14's only works out because there are no tires available in 14" with lower than a 50% aspect ratio. This fact only highlights the need to make this change. Tire manufacturers obviously find it unessesary to support these wheel sizes. Let's not wait until they decide 50% or 55% aspect ratios in 14's aren't profitable too!

oanglade
11-28-2003, 09:39 PM
Mr. Sleeper, you forgot the part about increasing tire pressures having the same effect as a lower aspect ratio (therefore eliminating any perceived or actual advantage).

http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Like Geo said, aspect ratio does not affect the coefficient of friction OR the total available grip of the tire.

This rule should be put out for member input!
http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by oanglade (edited November 28, 2003).]

The Sleeper
11-28-2003, 11:30 PM
Well gentleman, I see that no matter what facts I present I am wrong. So In parting I will leave you this Quote:
"A number of factors affect the coefficient of friction of a tire. The construction techniques used in the tire itself including contact patch area, bias angle, the tire compound, the section height, ASPECT RATIO ,(hummm imangine that) and other factors "
And this is a quote (except for my little LOL input) from pages 33 and 34 of formula car technology by howdy holmes and don alexander.
I came here as a guest a stranger I presented knowledge backed up with "facts" not myth`s, I was met with distain and rebuttal even after presenting the facts. I have no place on this forum, you have proved to me it is your forum and that is the way you wish to keep it. So in parting gentlemen let us just say we agree that we disagree......

Geo
11-29-2003, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by The Sleeper:
Well gentleman, I see that no matter what facts I present I am wrong.

Gee, I thought we were having and intelligent discussion. Is there no room in your mind for differing view points?


Originally posted by The Sleeper:
So In parting I will leave you this Quote:
"A number of factors affect the coefficient of friction of a tire. The construction techniques used in the tire itself including contact patch area, bias angle, the tire compound, the section height, ASPECT RATIO ,(hummm imangine that) and other factors "
And this is a quote (except for my little LOL input) from pages 33 and 34 of formula car technology by howdy holmes and don alexander.
I came here as a guest a stranger I presented knowledge backed up with "facts" not myth`s


Well, I don't know if a single quote from a single book qualifies as fact. I mean, I've been published in a major national magazine. Does that make everything I get published gospel? I think not. I can be as big a monkey as anyone. I've caught prominent technical writers get stuff way wrong that they should never have gotten wrong.

I'm not saying I know as much as a Goodyear tire engineer by any stretch. But I'm also not sure I buy that quote.


Originally posted by The Sleeper:
I was met with distain and rebuttal even after presenting the facts. I have no place on this forum, you have proved to me it is your forum and that is the way you wish to keep it. So in parting gentlemen let us just say we agree that we disagree......

Hey, I saw zero distain displayed. Rebuttal? Yes. Unless you think you infallible, you should expect that at times.

If you want to leave, no one can stop you. But you may want to reconsider. NOBODY was dissing you.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
11-29-2003, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by Jake:
Again, wrong argument. It doesn't matter what shorter sidewall height does or does not do...

Quite true, but for another more important reason as well.....

Wheel availability. We can argue all we like about whether opening up wheel sizes will create a competitive advantage. But one thing not in dispute is that if you are in the market for 14x7 wheels, you currently have one choice. Panasport. An expensive choice. A specialty racing wheel which IMHO is outside the philosophy of IT.

So, the big question that remains to be answered is what do we do about it? I certainly will support any request for a change in this rule. My personal feeling is that setting a maximum width and opening the diameter is easy peasy and puts everyone on the same footing (pun intended).



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Banzai240
11-29-2003, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by The Sleeper:
I have no place on this forum, you have proved to me it is your forum and that is the way you wish to keep it.

No, no, no... You don't leave just because of a disagreement...NO one would be here... Not everyone here disagrees with what you are saying..... Just go back an look on page two of this thread and you'll see where I began trying to detail the performance "benefits" of PLUS tire/wheel sizes...

Better to just present your arguments, back it with as much factual information as you can, and let everyone believe what they will...

To be honest... I find it very comforting knowing that I have the opportunity to race against drivers who are determined to stick to their guns and believe some of this stuff... Especially the ones who keep saying that the entire Racing and Automotive industry is wrong in using Plus tire/wheel combinations to improve the handling and performance of their cars! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

In Reality... we're talking only TENTHS of a second one way or the other, so it's really pointless to sit here and argue about it, because 90% of us out here don't have the money and talent to extract any performance difference anyhow. The real issue to me is availability, and very few here disagree that 14" is getting tougher to find...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

oanglade
12-22-2003, 09:45 AM
Well, the Feb, 2004 Fastrack has a letter requesting that IT cars that run on 13" wheels be allowed to run on 14" or 15". The Club Racing Board says that there is still an adequate supply of wheels and tires.


No word on the supply of 14x7s...

------------------
Ony

Banzai240
12-22-2003, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by oanglade:
The Club Racing Board says that there is still an adequate supply of wheels and tires.


I'm currently up to my ears in research work right now, but if someone else would like to help out...

The statement keeps getting made that there is an "adequate supply" of these wheels, but that is hardly quantitative. Someone needs to put together some facts and numbers.

A spreadsheet showing a list of suppliers, the various racing wheels sizes available from each, and some kind of cost comparison, would be nice to have. We need to take the "I feels...", the assumptions, and the unsubstantiated claims OUT of these rule making discussions and start gethering some facts.

In the brief amount of time I've had to look into this, I have found it difficult to locate 14x7" wheels. For that matter, if you go to, for instance, http:www.thetirerack.com and search on MANY of the popular cars (RX-7, Nissans, Acuras, etc...) and try to find 13" or 14" wheels in general, little or nothing shows up. 15"+ abound, however...

So, one has to question what "adequate" means in this respect, because IT racing isn't suppose to be about being one of the few who can afford to purchase that one-off item... it's suppose to be about affordable racing, and highly available cars and parts.

So, if you car is all prepped for next season and you want to help... Put together a well thought-out spreadsheet with the pertinent data and send it to me. I will compile the data along with any other data that might be pertinent and present it to the appropriate parties...

Let's let the facts speak for themselves...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

12-22-2003, 11:48 AM
I say allow all cars up to 16" and be done with it...

Greg Amy
12-22-2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
I say allow all cars up to 16" and be done with it...

And that, my friends, was post #10,000 in the Rules and Regs Forum...

GA

oanglade
12-22-2003, 03:29 PM
Darin,

You would think that if the CRB says that there are adequate quantities, then they already have the data and should be able to share it with us, right?

I mean, you don't think that they simply answered based on their opinion/belief without actually researching, right?

http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

OK, seriously now, in the letter that I sent, I explained what you just said about the 14x7 wheels.

Pretty much this same thing:
"I have found it difficult to locate 14x7" wheels. For that matter, if you go to, for instance, http:www.thetirerack.com and search on MANY of the popular cars (RX-7, Nissans, Acuras, etc...) and try to find 13" or 14" wheels in general, little or nothing shows up. 15"+ abound, however..."

I thought that this would be enough for them to actually go and check themselves, if they thought I would be lying or something, but I guess I'll have to submit written statements from wheel manufacturers, along with catalogs and brochures, as well as make my own diagrams with crayons so that this gets some consideration beyond someone just writting "there are adequate supplies" of 13x6 wheels.

------------------
Ony

Greg Amy
12-22-2003, 04:25 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...make my own diagrams with crayons so that this gets some consideration...</font>

<chuckle!>

Jake
12-22-2003, 08:45 PM
Well, I've done much of this homework - as I'm currently looking for 14x7's for my MR2. Here's the scoop for 14x7, 4x100 (Honda, Toyota, Mazda, etc) availability:

TSW Stealth: Discontinued 99-00 or so

Borbet Type T: Discontinued in 01

Revolution RFX: Discontinued 02-03

Panasport: Still available, $190+, however they will not fit my car (caliper interference)according to Panasport.

Circle Racing: May be possible to have
custom made in excess of $220+

Kodiak: May be able to have custom made. Very expensive.

Jake
12-22-2003, 09:08 PM
Oh and to be completely truthful, I did find ONE commercially available (not custom built) wheel that would fit my application. Here's a pic:
http://www.playerwirewheel.com/80100spokebo.jpg

lateapex911
12-22-2003, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
Oh and to be completely truthful, I did find ONE commercially available (not custom built) wheel that would fit my application. Here's a pic:
http://www.playerwirewheel.com/80100spokebo.jpg


I'd take 'em up on the gold finish option....it will compliment your red car better!


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

lateapex911
12-22-2003, 11:50 PM
Seriously though...I wonder if they are thinking of those "Diamond" brand steel wheels....they're cheap, and available on any size.

Kinda heavy, though....

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Banzai240
12-22-2003, 11:57 PM
Ummm... I don't think wire wheels are legal for SCCA, are they??? (and YES, I do realize you were just kidding around... or at least I was REALLY hoping you were... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )

DJ

Geo
12-23-2003, 12:19 AM
Guys, I will just say that this is NOT a dead topic. I personally will not let this die. And remember, this does not benefit me at all, so there is zero conflict of interest.

Keep writing the letters. I'm serious. I know it's frustrating to keep being rejected, but if you keep the letters coming, I will keep working on the back end. I make you that promise.

I do know there are a number of options in 13x7 since I did a little informal research over the weekend, but 14x7 are still only available from Panasport unless we are talking about custom-made wheels and I defy anyone to argue with a straight face that custom-made wheels fall under the P&I of IT.

Anyway, if this is to happen, you the members have to keep writing. If you think I'm full of horsepucky, write that too, but I assure you the only wheels you'll find reasonably available in 14x7 are Panasports.

I also stand firm that larger wheels are not performance advantage, just a change in feel. I think the rule should be open to diameter, but I have no dog in this hunt, so whatever y'all would like, say so.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Bill Miller
12-23-2003, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Ummm... I don't think wire wheels are legal for SCCA, are they??? (and YES, I do realize you were just kidding around... or at least I was REALLY hoping you were... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )

DJ


Why wouldn't they be legal Darin?


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

SpeedyDave
12-23-2003, 11:26 AM
Jake you want second in line for my 14x7's if Peter doesn't take 'em?

I've also got a couple sets of 14x6 and 14x6.5 that I may need to clear out soon too - gotta chop up the rusted parts car to make room for another.

FWIW, I think the reason the board has said wheels are available is that it is fairly easy to get 14x6 wheels, but of course everyone wants the limit of the rules with for ITA is 14x7.

Jake
12-23-2003, 02:21 PM
Oh yeah - Diamond racing wheels are available (in theory). They are said to be able to make 14x7's with a FWD center. Over 17lbs a wheel for steel wheels that need special lugs and that aren't hubcentric. Again, these are CUSTOM made wheels.

Dave, thanks for the offer. Right now my 4th 14x7 wheel is getting repaired. Should cost about $125 to get the one wheel fixed. So soon I'll be racing at 100mph on "repaired" wheels. Hope they stay together at speed. Thanks SCCA!!

True - 14x6 wheels are fairly easy to find. I'll be happy if they require MR2's to only use only 14x6 and put us in ITB!

Banzai240
12-23-2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Why wouldn't they be legal Darin?

That's why I had the big ??? mark... I wasn't sure... I thought I had read in the GCR/ITCS that wire wheels weren't permitted, but I just looked and can't seem to find anything pertaining to that, so I guess they are...

DJ

Knestis
12-23-2003, 05:19 PM
My memory is suspect but I seem to remember that there WAS a rule prohibiting wire wheels, probably 20 years ago...?

K

oanglade
12-23-2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by SpeedyDave:
FWIW, I think the reason the board has said wheels are available is that it is fairly easy to get 14x6 wheels, but of course everyone wants the limit of the rules with for ITA is 14x7.



It wouldn't surprise me. It's like classifying a car at a weight that it won't be able to reach.


Maybe my next letter should be to ask to change the rule to say that ITA cars can't run wheels wider than 6" because running 14x7" in today's world is against the philosophy of the class.


------------------
Ony

Jake
12-23-2003, 10:56 PM
Or better yet, maybe they'll allow my MR2 to run 14.5" wheels, but put me in ITS - and then (just to even things out) lower my min weight to 500lbs!

Domino
12-31-2003, 02:55 PM
Rota Slipstreams.....ahh but they're 15x7 not 14x7 http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/mad.gif

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAP...bayphotohosting (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=43955&item=2450615682#ebayphotohosting)

gsbaker
01-02-2004, 11:42 AM
I just want to be the first to post in the new year to a thread that began last July and now runs 5 pages. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

lateapex911
01-02-2004, 09:44 PM
Lets see if we can actually get this thing to 6 pages Gregg!

Ok, seems like a lot of us are in favor of some form of relaxed diameter rule, and we think that the CB is well, incorrect in their assertation that supply of all sizes is adequate.

But...how many of us have actually written? And, what'd ya say? (if you don't mind disclosing!)



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Jake
01-02-2004, 10:30 PM
Well said Jake. There seems to be a lot of interest in this, but I'm not sure how many people wrote to the SCCA. Let's start a running total of how many people actually wrote. I'll start. From the first post you get the jist of what I said. I proposed to open up wheel diameter completely but keep the width rules.

1 (starting the running total)

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited January 02, 2004).]

Geo
01-02-2004, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
But...how many of us have actually written? And, what'd ya say? (if you don't mind disclosing!)

Normally I would not disclose specifics of things I've communicated in an official capacity with the CRB. But, since I'm championing this crusade I will.

I have made clear to the appropriate people on the CRB that the situation is not what they think it is. I made quite clear that the only 14x7 wheels available are Panasports, a specialty motorsports wheel by any definition. I further explained that while I don't have a much knowledge of 13" wheels, I have heard plenty of difficulties of sourcing them as well.

Furthermore, I stated my personal opinion is that diameters should be free, but that I would support any effective compromise.

Lastly I stated my opinion that this issue is a crisis waiting to happen. What if Panasport decides to stop making 14x7 wheels?

So, I've done my part. Please do yours. Please write to the CRB whatever your opinion on this topic. It's my believe there is strong interest in opening up diameters, but the CRB needs to hear it from the members. They furthermore need to hear more about the difficulty in sourcing wheels in the sizes allowed. I am confident that the CRB will listen if y'all write. It's in your court.

Tell them what you think. If you think I'm full of horsepucky, tell them that too.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com