PDA

View Full Version : more thoughts on wheels



Bill Miller
01-18-2004, 11:00 AM
Didn't want to hijack Darin's thread, so I started a new one. Thoughts on this.

ITC/ITB - All cars can run up to 15x6" wheels

ITA/ITS - All cars can run up to 15x7" wheels. For those cars that came stock (not as an option) w/ 16" or 17" wheels, they will be allowed to run that diameter, but will be limited to 7" width.

ITSRX7
01-18-2004, 12:07 PM
Simple and clear. Keep that crap outta here! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

The ITAC is formulating a recommendation for our next con call.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Knestis
01-18-2004, 12:09 PM
I like this but only marginally better than D's suggestion. In practice they both mean about the same thing, I expect because there is a small return under IT rules to the step from 15" to 16", or 16"-17".

The Miller Amendment heads off what I think are unsubstantiated concerns but philosophically limits rules creep, by not extending the "plus" allowance to classes where wheel availability is not an issue.

On the other hand, Darin's plan addresses the coming of larger wheels more proactively and - taking the broad view - equitably. That said, I still think plus sizes for the very few 16/17" cars currently in IT is premature.

THAT, said - it's probably six of one, a half dozen of another.

K

Jake
01-18-2004, 12:37 PM
I'd support either one. Either addresses the problem of dwindling supplies in 13" and 14" sizes.

Banzai240
01-18-2004, 02:16 PM
My wording was specifically choosen so as not to exclude anyone from having wheel options.

As for the notion that "plus sizes for the very few 16/17" cars currently in IT is premature."... Sometimes, you have to do things because they just make sense, and not always because they are a "need"... When you "need" these things, it's usually a little late. It wouldn't harm IT in the least to make a few, very select changes to the rules to help keep them viable into the coming years. I don't see a change such as has been proposed as harming the class at all, and in fact, would make it more attractive to many out there.

We'll see how things go. I'm not worried about the "rules creep" issue, because there is a good group of people considering these things very carefully, and want, above all else, to continue the success of IT into the future.

Keep up the good thoughts.



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

gran racing
01-18-2004, 03:27 PM
Being a person that uses 13" wheels, when would it be an advantage for me to use a 14" or 15" (related to gearing, not availability, ect.)?

Jake
01-18-2004, 05:55 PM
No - actually it would be a disadvantage.

Knestis
01-18-2004, 06:03 PM
I think it's less about real advantage and more about the percption of it - or the option to choose an advantage or disadvantage based on individual desires.

K

Geo
01-18-2004, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
My wording was specifically choosen so as not to exclude anyone from having wheel options.

As for the notion that "plus sizes for the very few 16/17" cars currently in IT is premature."... Sometimes, you have to do things because they just make sense, and not always because they are a "need"... When you "need" these things, it's usually a little late. It wouldn't harm IT in the least to make a few, very select changes to the rules to help keep them viable into the coming years. I don't see a change such as has been proposed as harming the class at all, and in fact, would make it more attractive to many out there.

We'll see how things go. I'm not worried about the "rules creep" issue, because there is a good group of people considering these things very carefully, and want, above all else, to continue the success of IT into the future.

While I could live with Bill's proposal, and I could also live with just opening up diameters, I do have to agree with everything Darin has said here. I've been pushing this issue, and I personally think Darin's proposal is probably one the best compromise we could ask for. A few people will be upset on both ends of the equations, but the vast majority of the IT community that have been polled (including outside this forum) I think would support this heartily.

I think Darin is spot-on above.

------------------
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 January 18, 2004).]

Greg Gauper
01-18-2004, 07:42 PM
In some cases, its an advantage to run 13" instead of 15" due to less rotational inertia.

The E-prod Miatas are allowed to run either 13" or 15" rims.......guess what size Braake won his national championship on http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

(Hint....think small)

Geo
01-18-2004, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I think it's less about real advantage and more about the percption of it - or the option to choose an advantage or disadvantage based on individual desires.


I think Kirk is right about perception.

I still think it's more about being able to actually find wheels and tires for a reasonable price.


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

Knestis
01-18-2004, 08:13 PM
Sorry - to clarify: I agree with Geo.

The REAL issues is about not being able to find 14s. The micro solution to that is to allow cars that came with 14s to run 15s (since 13s are only marginally less an issue than 14s, it seems).

Beyond that - secondary issues - it's all about perceptions.

K

Bill Miller
01-18-2004, 09:12 PM
I can see where running 13's would be advantageous at a short, tight track, like LRP for example. By the same token, I can see 15's being advantageous a longer, more open tracks, like Road America for example. I haven't looked at what kind of change in gearing I could get from say a 205/60/13 vs. a 205/50/15. Note: just checked the TireRack for specs on Hoosiers.

205/60/13 - diameter = 22.7"
205/50/15 - diameter = 22.8"

Essentially no difference. Interesting side note though. For the 13", they list a suggested rim width of 7-8" yet their specs are taken on a 6" wheel. For the 15", it's 7.5-8.5" w/ the specs taken on a 6.5" wheel.

So, no real advantage of running one over the other, from a gearing standpoint. Interesting to note that the 13" tire is $31/tire cheaper than the 15" tire (R3S03). No 13" tires are offered in the new R4S04 configuration/compound (Hmmmm, does this sound familiar???).

And Darin, I'm sorry, but you're going to do a hell of a lot more than that to convince me that plus sizing 'makes sense' for cars that come w/15", 16", and 17" wheels, stock. The whole reason behind any of this, is to provide more wheel availability for guys running 13" and 14" wheels. I just can't see there ever beeing a shortage of 15", 16", and 17" wheels in our lifetime. You're trying to piggy-back something that's not needed onto something that is. That my friend, is a textbook case of rules creep.

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

Bill Miller
01-18-2004, 09:37 PM
/edit/ duplicate post.

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited January 18, 2004).]

gran racing
01-18-2004, 10:05 PM
There are several ways to look at this topic. It is for availability reasons (based on what was said) there would be little reason for someone with 13" or 14" rims to use a larger wheel. That was what I thought, but wanted to verify. So that takes away the availability theory.

It almost seems that rule would primarily benefit those wishing to reduce their wheel size. 15" to 13".

Change gearing - could go either way here. You are giving another benefit to those people who have larger wheels. The benefit is easier access to changing the gear ratios. And yes, people with 13" and 14" can change the gear ratios, but not as easily. I am not saying I am necessarily against the proposal...

Banzai240
01-18-2004, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
The whole reason behind any of this, is to provide more wheel availability for guys running 13" and 14" wheels.

I'm not going to try to argue with you Bill... You'll believe what you want regardless of what I say.

This issue is about more than band-aides for certain cars. As long as there is even ONE manufacturer of wheels out there supplying the vaious 13" and 14" wheels, they are "avaialable", so that's really a weak argument by itself. If you look at it, however, from the standpoint of what makes the class continue to be viable and attract/keep participants, it doesn't tie you to only those band-aide fixes, but rather to what helps to sustain the success for the class.

A rule change, as I've suggested in my poll, updates the class only slightly, but enough to increase the scope of cars and drivers wishing to participate. That's what I believe, and for whatever reason they might believe, there are about 30+ others here who seem to think it's a good idea as well.

Just curious... what exactly is your problem with allowing larger than xx" wheels anyhow? What is it you are trying to protect?



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Banzai240
01-18-2004, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:
It almost seems that rule would primarily benefit those wishing to reduce their wheel size. 15" to 13".

Guys... read carefully... If you are referring to my poll... there would be NO provisions to go DOWN in wheel size if you started with 15" wheels... 13" can upgrade to as large as 15", 15" to 16", and so on... There was nothing mentioned of going the other way. It's a "PLUS" upgrade...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

ITSRX7
01-18-2004, 10:22 PM
So, let's summarize the thoughts so far:

Not one person has stated that going up a size would be a performance advantage, if there is, it is neglegent.

The other issue is availability - which is why this is on the table. Darin first started talking about this a LONG time ago. If there is no performance advantage and it helps keep costs down, I see it as a good thing, right?

Bill,

There may not be a problem with 15" wheels right now, but if there are no performance gains to be had, why not have the rule in place for when it does happen? This is a case of solving one issue and being proactive on another - all in one fell swoop. In your mind, is rules creep and the 'evolution' of rules, the same thing?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Bill Miller
01-19-2004, 12:27 AM
[quote]This issue is about more than band-aides for certain cars. As long as there is even ONE manufacturer of wheels out there supplying the vaious 13" and 14" wheels, they are "avaialable", so that's really a weak argument by itself. If you look at it, however, from the standpoint of what makes the class continue to be viable and attract/keep participants, it doesn't tie you to only those band-aide fixes, but rather to what helps to sustain the success for the class.[quote].

Darin,

Please read my post again. I said more availability. I didn't say they weren't available. And what's a weak arguement, is you're implication that not allowing cars to run 16,17, and 18" wheels is going to hinder the long-term success of the category. You were one of the ones that were the biggest backers of things 'not being broken' in IT, so there was no need for comp. adjustments. Yet now, you want to essentially re-write the wheel rules for the whole category, when the only thing that needs to be addressed is the availability of the 13" and 14" wheels. If there was a ready supply of 13" and 14" wheels, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

The provision was already made for the cars w/ metric wheels to use more readily available wheels due to the shortage of wheels and tires. The same thing is now happening w/ 13's and 14's (you did see my comment about availability of the new Hoosier in 13" sizes, didn't you?).

I'm interested in what your thoughts are on some guys not being able to run (what may be) the best tire out there, because it's not made in a size that they can use.

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

Banzai240
01-19-2004, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
[quote]I'm interested in what your thoughts are on some guys not being able to run (what may be) the best tire out there, because it's not made in a size that they can use.

Give me an example of how this would be possible if EVERYONE were allowed to run at least a 15" wheel...


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You were one of the ones that were the biggest backers of things 'not being broken' in IT, so there was no need for comp. adjustments.</font>

Maybe you'll find some passing quote to support this, but it sounds to me like you have the wrong guy. I've NEVER support "Production-style" CAs, but I've supported PCAs from the beginning. Further, IT isn't broken, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need some minor tweaking.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If there was a ready supply of 13" and 14" wheels, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.</font>

I would be... Have you ever heard me say I WAS NOT in favor of opening up wheel diameters in IT? It's now a commonplace performance upgrade on the streets and on the track...

Again, I'm apparently NOT alone in my thinking...


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...is you're implication that not allowing cars to run 16,17, and 18" wheels is going to hinder the long-term success of the category.</font>

With NASA gobbling up our drivers, and racers choosing SM or other avenues to race their otherwise IT cars... YES, that is part of my agrument, and one that could hold water all on it's own...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 18, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 18, 2004).]

xr4racer
01-19-2004, 12:34 AM
I have no problem with allowing any diameter wheel on any IT car. Iam tired of hearing people say they would race with the SCCA but they already have bigger wheels and tires and do not want to go back to the specifed size. I do not care if someone wants to race with 20" wheels, I will stick with my 15" wheels on my ITS RX-7 and get tires for half the price of the 20" competitor. If both cars have the same rear gear which one do you tink will out accelerate the other? Since differential ratio is open anyway, you can gear your car however you want without changing wheel diameter. As for someone going down in diameter, it will probably be fairly hard to get a smaller wheel over the existing brakes that must be used. The reason Production cars can use 13 or 15 is because that is all that is available in racing slicks.

Bill Miller
01-19-2004, 01:26 AM
Darin,

That's my point. Until you open up the wheel rules and allow the guys that are running 13's and 14's to run 15's, you've taken away the ability of the guys w/ 13's to run the potential best tire out there.

And I hardly see a complete re-write of the wheel rules as 'minor tweaking'. That's a pretty significant change in my book.

Now that's the best one I've heard in a long time, IT is losing drivers to SM and NASA because the drivers can't run 16/17/18 inch wheels. You're really grabbing at straws Darin.

And please make up your mind Darin. Either larger wheels are or are not a performance 'upgrade'. You've gone both ways on this one.

Banzai240
01-19-2004, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
That's a pretty significant change in my book.

That's why they are called "opinions"... Everyone has and is entitled to one...




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Knestis
01-19-2004, 09:38 AM
What Bill has proposed is really just a TINY incremental step short of what Darin's straw poll is assessing. Under both proposals, cars that came with 13s can run 15s (they won't choose 14s for the obvious reason), and cars that came with 14s can run 15s.

The anti-creep purist in me would like to stop here. However, another side of me recognizes that the pace of change on this front is accelerating. My puny 2002 Civic came with 15" wheels (oddly, the same diameter as my 1957 Beetle did) and a non-scientific poll of TireRack offerings suggests the same.

I sorted options for my car just by diameter and got...

14" - three choices (again, the source of the problem)
15" - 26 choices
16" - 34 choices
17" - 32 choices

To the extent that racing is driven by the aftermarket (arguments to the contrary notwithstanding), IT arguably should be attentive to this trend.

Look at it this way: If we went with Bill's more restrictive option, we'll be having this conversation again in 5 years, easy.

The only question in my mind is unforeseen circumstances brought on by larger wheels. I can't see any but that's what makes them unforeseen. Any thoughts on this?

K

ITSRX7
01-19-2004, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
The only question in my mind is unforeseen circumstances brought on by larger wheels. I can't see any but that's what makes them unforeseen. Any thoughts on this?
K

Great question - and that is why Darin has introduced this topic to this forum. As we exchange ideas on the ITAC, we can't think of everything. So far, we haven't had any resonable arguments against. Keep the thoughtful research and anaysis coming!

I would like Bill to adress my questio to him in my previous post - it's an honest question - it would help me understand his position better.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

gran racing
01-19-2004, 10:25 AM
For people using 13" or 14" rims...would opening up the wheel sizes in essence cause even less availability of tires and rims in 13" & 14" sizes?

The guy that used to use a 13" rim now changes to a 15" rim. Now there is less demand for the 13" products and eventually may force the person who still wants to run 13" rims into running 15" rims. Some may say that is already the case. And I'm not really sure this would happen.

Knestis
01-19-2004, 11:24 AM
That's really the issue at hand here - supply and demand. It's probably the case that IT racers are a TINY percentage of the US wheel aftermarket so it seems likely to me that we are driven by supply, rather than driving it.

Now race tires are a different deal: I'd venture that SCCA IT racers make up a significant (if shrinking) percentage of that market. We probably do influence supply and, if demand for 13" and 14" rubber decreases (or continues to decrease), it becomes relatively less attractive to tool up and make them.

Further, it is likely the case that IT cars that actually use 13- and 14-inch wheels make up an increasinly smaller proportion of the grid. There was a time when nearly ALL Improved Touring cars ran on 13" rubber and we thought that the MkI GTI was cool because it had 14s. That day is LONG gone and I'll be that the smallest wheel on all but a few newly classified IT car will be a 15 from here on out...

K

Chris Sawatsky
01-19-2004, 12:21 PM
While I tend to stay out of rule threads as I race with WCMA rather than SCCA, my opinion is that diameter should be open, and width regulated. There is a limit to where a larger diamter wheel is a benefit for handling, and lightweight 15" wheels are available for much less than lightweight 14x7" wheels
As far as using smaller wheels to lower your gearing, it is an option already to due this via different final drive gears. The only reason, really, to do it with wheels instead is because it's cheaper, and isn't IT supposed to be affordable racing?

Turfer
01-19-2004, 01:02 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We probably do influence supply and, if demand for 13" and 14" rubber decreases (or continues to decrease), it becomes relatively less attractive to tool up and make them.K[/B]</font>

If the rules were revised and the majority of IT cars were running on 15" wheels and tires, it is absolutely concievable that the price for 15" tires would drop or at least level out for a number of years. In the scale of econimies, the tire manufactures could produce larger runs of fewer tires, generating equal or greater profit with lower selling price.

Just another thought.

Rick

cherokee
01-19-2004, 02:35 PM
Just a question...I have not looked...I am actually working at work today (something wrong with that)

Are 15x6 easy to find next to 13x6 or 14x6?...in general.

Banzai240
01-19-2004, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
Are 15x6 easy to find next to 13x6 or 14x6?...in general.

Just a very crude, quick, general search of both The Tirerack and Discount Tire actually shows that, for some of the popular bolt patterns, 14x6 or 15x6.5 seem to be the most plentiful of these two diameters, though many of the 14x6 listed (for example for the 1996 Honda EX) are shown as "closeouts"...

I also looked at Revolution and they seem to have them:

http://www.ttrsracing.com/revolution_race.htm

Perhaps others can search for their applications as well with various manufactures and report back here with their findings.

Probably best to find out now if they would be available before making any kind of rule decision, eh??? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 19, 2004).]

planet6racing
01-19-2004, 03:14 PM
I was thinking along the same lines as Cherokee. In my searches of 15" wheels, I have not come across many 6" wide. The smallest is typically 6.5".

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

gran racing
01-19-2004, 08:36 PM
In regards to making the gear ratio cheaper - yes it would, but for everyone other than the people that have 13" wheels already. And again, I'm not saying I am against it but it is a fact.

13" rims are available. Actually I'm in the search right now. Until recently, I wasn't able to get steel 13" rims with the proper backspace for my FWD car. But that recently changed and I can now.

The idea of being able to go up but now down in wheel size makes sense.

Bill Miller
01-19-2004, 10:02 PM
Andy,

If you're talking about the 'rules creep' question. No, I don't see rules 'evolution' and 'creep' as the same thing. Evolution deals w/ addressing the changing nature of the category. Creep moves that category away from its philosophy, purpose, and intent. In some cases, rules evolution is required, as a result of rules creep. In others, it's driven out of a technology change, and in still others, it's driven out of parts availability.

I see the PCA (bleh!) proposal as an example of the first. I see the ECU rule as an example of the second. And I see opening up of wheels diameters, as an example of the third.

Allowing people to use larger diameter wheels, due to a shortage of smaller diameter wheels, is evolution. Allowing people to use larger diameter wheels becuase of a perceived future shortage, is creep.

Kirk, I respectfully disagree that there will be a shortage of 15" wheels in 5 years time anywhere close to what we have today w/ 13's and 14's. I doubt that there will be any kind of shortage of 15" wheels.

And, that's a good point about 15x6's. So, give everyone 15x7s. That way if a car is moved up or down a class, they won't have to get new wheels.

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

Geo
01-19-2004, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Look at it this way: If we went with Bill's more restrictive option, we'll be having this conversation again in 5 years, easy.

The only question in my mind is unforeseen circumstances brought on by larger wheels. I can't see any but that's what makes them unforeseen. Any thoughts on this?

That's exactly as I see it Kirk. Furthermore, I truly don't see larger wheels as any sort of performance advantage. I think much of this is just folk lore that keeps being repeated and taken for gospel. Interestingly, there seem to be as many people who perceive smaller wheels to be an advantage as those who think larger wheels are an advantage.

My personal feeling is just open up the diameters, but the realist in me says that Darin's proposal has the best chance of going forward.


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

Jake
01-19-2004, 10:55 PM
Darin,

So where do we go from here? Your proposal seems to be a good comprimise. Judgining by your poll-thread there is overwhelming support for your wording. How do we get this on the agenda?

Banzai240
01-19-2004, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
How do we get this on the agenda?

It's already being presented for further consideration...

Stay tuned...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 19, 2004).]

Knestis
01-20-2004, 12:19 AM
Duh. I hadn't considered the issue of finding 15x6 wheels. The 15x7 has become the default setting of 2004 like the 13x6 was 20 years ago. Damn - has it been that long?

K

Banzai240
01-20-2004, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Duh. I hadn't considered the issue of finding 15x6 wheels.

I did some research on the Tire Rack and at Discount Tire... Using various ITB cars as examples, it's a mixed bag of availability. Some have 15x6 available and some don't. The selection of 15x6.5", however, is VAST... almost as good as 15x7"...

Not sure what to think of this at this point....



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Turfer
01-20-2004, 01:08 AM
I am in favor of revising the wording to allow up to 7" wide wheels by 15" diameter.

Rick

ITSRX7
01-20-2004, 09:48 AM
Well, it's obvious that we are at an interesting crossroads. ANY increase in wheel width will throw off the performance envelopes we have now and can truely be considered creep.

However, if the problem is 6" wheel sizes for the ITB and ITC guys, what do we do? THAT is the real question now. If you allow 6.5" widths, then you have virtually created the need for all to go do that and that is NOT the intent of this discussion - keeping costs DOWN and the perfornace in the same general area is.

Ideas?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

cherokee
01-20-2004, 09:51 AM
I think for this to do what is intended you are going to have to widen the wheels up to 6.5 or 7". I would think that the 6" wheel is going to go the way of the 13" wheel and be harder and harder to find as time goes on.
As long as you can fit 6.5 or 7" under the fenders I would think that would be the best way to go....for this.

Knestis
01-20-2004, 10:04 AM
...but that becomes a de facto performance adjustment for any car that can't fit the wider wheels and the tires that come with them, as others can.

I don't know of specific situations where this is the case but it's accurate in the abstract.

Maybe the solution IS something like Jake(?) suggested - open things up. Just brainstorming here but if the practical limit becomes what will fit in the fenders, then maybe that's the only rule we need.

The tech folks would have to be good at spotting body tweaks...

K

cherokee
01-20-2004, 10:39 AM
I agree...it would be a BIG plus for some cars, kinda like the ECU rule was (sorry had to stick that in there) We can leave things the way they are now and just scrounge for wheels or run 5.5" or 6" and not 6" or 7" or just open the thing up like they did on the ECU. If it fits it is ok. I am not sure if I like that but I think it might be the best way to go. And yes I think that some cars will need to be "adjusted", moved....

planet6racing
01-20-2004, 10:40 AM
Well, my proposal would be to drop ITB and ITC because their wheels won't play nice. Class them all in ITA with no competition adjustments and lets go racing!!! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

Banzai240
01-20-2004, 12:11 PM
Now is where things start to look a little "creepy". We don't want to necessitate that everyone go out and buy new wheels to keep up, which is what may happen if the widths are increased.

Now, is .5" wider going to make a big difference? Not likely... Your fenders really determine how big you can go with tires, so .5" either way isn't going to change the tire you choose.

I put together a spreadsheet from The Tire Rack last night for a random list of ITB cars (nearly one example of each make classified...) to see what was out there. For some cars, 14x6 and 15x6 were available, thought the selection was VERY slim. If you allow up to a 6.5", that does NOT open up you 14" options, but it does give you a LARGE selection of 15" wheels... MORE, in fact, than 15x7's for many of the applications listed. If the rules were changed to allow anything up to 7" wide, cheap wheels would be VERY plentiful in 15".

However, now all those guys currently racing would be put in a position where their current stock of wheels is definately in jeopordy of becoming obsolete, as now a 13x6" wheel truely ISN'T equivalent to a 15x7" wheel, from a treadwidth perspective.

Now, while I'm certain that there would be people bitching an complaining about this, I have to wonder if in time they'd come to embrace the idea and enjoy having the options available to them?

Interesting position to find ourselves in... While opening up the widths to fit the market would help keep IT "cheap racing" from a wheel availibility and price standpoint, it would create a postition where people would have to spend money to make the switch.

If we do nothing, we're back here in another 6-months... If we put this in place, however, in a manner that makes sense, we would never be having the conversation again...

Any thoughts?

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Banzai240
01-20-2004, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
...but that becomes a de facto performance adjustment for any car that can't fit the wider wheels and the tires that come with them, as others can.


However, Kirk, if you actually go out and LOOK at the majority of the applications in ITB/ITC, you'll find that STOCK fitment charts list the 15x6.5" wheel for many of them, which means that the hypothetical situation that you've described may not really exist too often in practice.

What I've basically found... well, looking at the Tire Rack mostly, is that there are VERY few 14" wheel options out there, and VERY few 15x6" wheel options, but MANY 15x6.5"+ wheel options...

The question really becomes, is this a concern and do we take this opportunity to securely alter the wheel rules once and for all...? (famous last words...)


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 20, 2004).]

Jake
01-20-2004, 12:24 PM
I think we can leave ITB and ITC with the 6" wheel limit.

I will agrue until I'm blue in the face that diameter is not a performance benefit, but width is. Allowing a wider wheel for B+C may force drivers to upgrade to wider wheels to stay competitive. This goes against what we are trying to accomplish here by making things more affordable. Worse yet, it will create a situation where some vehicles can benifit while others can't - since not all vehicles will be able to fit wider wheels.

The 13" aftermarket is dead, but 14x6" wheels are plentiful and cheap. Take a look at www.tires.com (http://www.tires.com). They list no less than 13 models of 14x6" wheels, 12 of which cost less than $100/each. Manufacturers include TSW, Konig, and others.

Make no mistake, the problem is finding 13x7 and 14x7 wheels. They are the scarce ones.

Banzai240
01-20-2004, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
I think we can leave ITB and ITC with the 6" wheel limit.

...

Make no mistake, the problem is finding 13x7 and 14x7 wheels. They are the scarce ones.


Good Post Jake. I tend to agree with what you said here.


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Jake
01-20-2004, 12:30 PM
Darin, don't get hung up by doing all your research at tirerack.com

14x6" wheels can be found in many places including Sears and Pepboys. BBS even still builds them.

cherokee
01-20-2004, 12:37 PM
Here is what I would suggest:

Your car can run the current size wheel that it is classified with, you can increase the size to X"(I would pick 15"). The width is open as long as it fits under the fenders. Same for all IT classes.

I see this as no different then the ECU issue. If you have 2 cars equal in every way and have a super whiz-bang ECU in one of them...any guess who is faster. The one with out is going to have to spend $$ to keep up...no difference in wheels, in fact I think it would be less of a difference both in $$ and in lap times.

The key is to make it cost effective. And anyone who is going to look at a 15x7 vs hard to find 13 or 14 is going to find it cost effective. It also might be a step in the right direction in bringing in a younger croud.

Jake
01-20-2004, 12:59 PM
Cher,

This is VERY different than the ECU issue. The ECU rule was only changed because it is not enforcable. If people can cheat and get away with it, might as well allow everyone that option. It was a good decision, but it was made for other reasons. I assure you, that if modified ECU's were as easy to spot as plus-sized wheels, the rule would never have been changed.

Knestis
01-20-2004, 01:08 PM
Thinking further - and more concretely - an allowance for me to use 15x6 wheels on my (future) ITB Golf allows me to use them. It doesn't require it. In truth, if I were given this option, I probably wouldn't take it given the current and projected short-term wheel availability situation and what I know about tire availability.

If the limiting factor is width (6") I have a buttload of 14x6 options. Someone on honda-tech.com even put together a list of OE 4x100 wheels that I hosted at http://it2.evaluand.com/downloads/4x100ListCingham.xls

K

cherokee
01-20-2004, 01:45 PM
I am sorry but just because something is hard or not easy to spot do does not mean we should wright a rule to allow it. You are doing the same thing with both wheels and ECU....it does not matter the reason, some will, some will not, and some can't, those that will not or can't are at a disavantage to those that did.
The rules changed after you started the game.

And if you want to put this issue to bed you have to think long term, sure 6" wheels are common now....just like 13" wheels once where...see where this is going. If you say "if it fits under the fender it is ok" you have everyone with VAST CHEAP options as long as the cars have fenders.

Anything that is done will change the rules after people have started the game, and that will upset some people. The thing (rules makers) need to do is come up with rules that will last us as long as possible. "if it fits under the fender" would be with us as long as the cars had fenders...and would be easy police-able. Sure is will make some faster...but that is the same thing that the ECU rule did.

ITSRX7
01-20-2004, 02:56 PM
The ECU rule aside for a variety of reasons (1. It isn't 'hard' to police - it's IMPOSSIBLE and 2. The current ECU IMHO has had unintended results - ie: MOTEC boxes inside factory housings), I would like to keep this thread alive.

Can we really open up to ANY diameter? If we can agree there would be an EXTREAMLY limited performance increase, is there a problem? Not expressing an opinion, just soliciting responses...

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Banzai240
01-20-2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Can we really open up to ANY diameter? If we can agree there would be an EXTREAMLY limited performance increase, is there a problem? Not expressing an opinion, just soliciting responses...

AB



Andy and others... If the wording for a wheel rule that I suggested is adopted, is the issue really diameter? OR, is it WIDTH? Allowing larger diameters is really pointless, because at any size above 15", you are NOT going to find anything under 6.5" wide... and even 15x6" is a little bit scarce.

The standard wheel widths at 15"+ diameters are 6.5" for 15", then 7" and 7.5" for 16"+...

So, if you are an ITC/ITB car (or current ITA car that may get MOVED to ITB...), any diameter over 15" is pointless, because you are going to find very little selection with a 6" width from any standard wheel suppliers.

I, therefore doubt, even with open wheel diameters, that you'd see any Rabbits out there running around on 18" wheels, simply because you'd never find them in the 6" width. If I'm wrong about this and the wheels supply is out there, feel free to correct me on this.

I'm worried about the ramifications of increasing the width allowances in IT, mostly because of the short term effects. In the long term, however, it might make a lot of sense to consider revising the width rules as well to match what is available out there.

Any thoughts?


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 20, 2004).]

cherokee
01-20-2004, 04:26 PM
Nothing is Impossible. These are FACTORY mass production cars. Sure there are $$ that will need to be spent for some..on others undo a couple of screws and see if there is a Neuspeed chip or what ever in there. But opening up the computers is about as far from the "intent of IT" as you can get. What I suggested with the wheel size is simple, easly policed, long lasting, and everyone can take advantage of it to one degree or another if they choose to.

Knestis
01-20-2004, 04:41 PM
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the problem of moving cars from class to class complicates this conversation too much: That issue should be considered as part of an individual make/model movement decision rather than the other way 'round.

Focusing on scarcity, allowing ITC and ITB cars currently required to use 13s to step up to 14s does NOT create a demand-supply problem, generally speaking. There might be some applications that are harder to fit but again, there are lots of 14x6 OE alloys out there.

K

ITSRX7
01-20-2004, 04:46 PM
Let's not rehash the ECU issues here. Bottom line is that on some ECU's, you can 'flash' the paramerters. Undetectable without super-sophisticated diagnostic equipment that will NEVER be utilized in IT impounds.

Take a look at Darin's post above. Opening up the wheel diameters may not be the answser. What is?


AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

planet6racing
01-20-2004, 04:52 PM
Well, I know many of us are thinking it, so I'll verbalize it:

+1/+2 sizing on Diameter for 13 or 14's, +1 for 15's.

ITB/ITC up to 6.5" width without penalty, +2753 lbs for 7" width. Weight must be carried as ballast in defined location over and on top of vehicle weight.

(Obviously, the weight number is completely random)




------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

cherokee
01-20-2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:

Focusing on scarcity, allowing ITC and ITB cars currently required to use 13s to step up to 14s does NOT create a demand-supply problem, generally speaking. There might be some applications that are harder to fit but again, there are lots of 14x6 OE alloys out there.

K

We must decide where to draw the line. Any 13" wheel is pretty hard to find compared to other sizes. So only allow the B&C 13" guys to go to 14x6. The other poor guy that was looking for 14x7's would be told tough luck you can run 6's as the 7" is your max size and "there are lots of 14x6 OE alloys out there

Knestis
01-20-2004, 06:34 PM
I might not be following but simply telling someone in a class where cars are allowed to run 7" wheels (ITA or ITS) that, due to availability limitations - he/she has to step back an inch in width seems unreasonable - given that it's pretty commonly held that the extra width IS an advantage.

Remember that it's within-class equity that probably matters most - defined as not putting someone at a relative disadvantage due to the changing aftermarket OR a rule adjustment. What happens in A relative to B and C is far less important.

K

Geo
01-20-2004, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Can we really open up to ANY diameter? If we can agree there would be an EXTREAMLY limited performance increase, is there a problem? Not expressing an opinion, just soliciting responses...

IMHO we can. IMHO there will be no demonstratable increase in performance.


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

Jake
01-20-2004, 07:56 PM
In the thread I opened, people seem to oppose opening up wheel diameter by a 2:1 margin.

I think the rule as written by Darin’s thread is spot on:

ALL IT cars currently classified with only 13" wheels are allowed a +1/+2" wheel diameter upgrade.
All remaining IT cars are allowed a +1" upgrade over their currently allowed wheel diameter.
Rim width allowance remains the same.
For those not keeping score: The Yea’s have it.
For: 36
Against: 3

This allows ITB/C to at least run plentiful 14x6 wheels.
This allows ITS/A to at least run plentiful 15x7 wheels.
This gives the cars with 16"+ wheels the same percieved benefit as the 13/14" cars.

This is a balanced proposal that fixes the current problem and seems the most fair to everyone.

Bill Miller
01-20-2004, 08:08 PM
Like I said before, I hadn't even considered the limited availability of 15x6 wheels. And, allowing the 13" guys in ITC/B to run 14x6 is nothing more than a short-term band-aid.

I would like the guys that justify allowing 16/17/18 inch wheels because that's where we'll eventually be, to explain why would should stop at 15x6 or 15x6.5 for the ITB/C guys. I think Darin alluded to us needed to do this again in a few years if we did that.

If we're going to do this, and hopefully only have to do it once, it would seem to be the best long-term decision to allow at least 15x7 for everyone. Will it really be that much of an advantage? There are guys stuff 225/50/13's on 6" wheels now. How much more tire are they going to be able to get under the car? And, when I ran my ITA MR2, I ran 205/55/14 on my 14x7 Panasports. Same size as I ran on my 14x6 Snowflakes on my ITB GTI.

For those that say there will be a performance advantage to running a wider rim, I'd be interested in tire wear data for ITA and ITB cars. Are the A guys w/ 7" wheels getting that much more out of their tires than the B (or C) guys w/ 6" wheels? A lot of the A cars can't get any more tire under the car than the B or C guys can. Does an ITA Golf 16v w/ 14x7" wheels get that much better tire wear than an ITB Golf 8v w/ 14x6" wheels?

The letter I'm going to send in will request that all cars be allowed to run 15x7 wheels.

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

ITSRX7
01-20-2004, 09:00 PM
So how would you write the rule?

"All cars with 15" rims and below may run any size width and diamter rim UP TO 7" wide and/or 15" in diameter. Those cars allowed or specified to run 16" or larger must do so."

Horrible? Someone tweek or re-write.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Banzai240
01-20-2004, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Horrible? Someone tweek or re-write.

AB



Andy... It's simpler than that. Just change the width limit on ITB/ITC cars to 7" instead of 6", and then use the wording that I proposed. That would cover it... Everyone would be allowed at least a 15x7" wheel...

Geo
01-20-2004, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
So how would you write the rule?

I'd take Darin's wording verbatim.


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

Jake
01-20-2004, 09:40 PM
My bud Dave (granracing on this board) runs a 215/50VR13 on a 13x6 rim. The edges of the tire don't even wear because the tire doesn't fit square. He's probably only using 80% of the tire. The same tire sits perfectly square on a 13x7 wheel. That translates to longer wear and more performance. Extra wheel width is certainly an advantage.

Everyone seems so worried about ITB/C, but I don't see them asking for wider wheels. If I ran in B/C I would never want a width increase to 7" because it would cause me to spend money. Let's stick to fixing the problem we have and not create problems where there isn't one.

cherokee
01-20-2004, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Like I said before, I hadn't even considered the limited availability of 15x6 wheels. And, allowing the 13" guys in ITC/B to run 14x6 is nothing more than a short-term band-aid.

If we're going to do this, and hopefully only have to do it once, it would seem to be the best long-term decision to allow at least 15x7 for everyone. Will it really be that much of an advantage? There are guys stuff 225/50/13's on 6" wheels now. How much more tire are they going to be able to get under the car? And, when I ran my ITA MR2, I ran 205/55/14 on my 14x7 Panasports. Same size as I ran on my 14x6 Snowflakes on my ITB GTI.



These two parts are very key to this...If you limit someone to 6" rims we will be doing this again in a few years.

My car is like Bill's one size tire on 6" and 7" wheels. How is telling a guy that he has to down an inch in the rim size is going to make him run a smaller tire? Remember the rules as written now say Max width, there is no guarantee that you get to run the max. The fenders are the limiting factor in my case...and I think in most cases it would be. 7" may be so wide that it will not make any difference...can't get that much tire under the car anyway so I will run 6.5's.

cherokee
01-20-2004, 10:06 PM
Jake...But if he could not find (cheap, and this is what this is realy all about) wheels he would be asking for wider wheels....after the supplies of 14x6's dry up...and they will, just like the 13's did before them.
Just give the extra "inch" and be done with it for good. You can build your car to the max of the rules or you can not and anywhere in between...It would not be the first time that the rules changed that cost people money....at least we are not talking about taking anything away.

Jake
01-20-2004, 10:25 PM
I hate to say it, but if 14x6 wheels dry up - let's deal with that then. Honestly, I just don't see it. 14x6 is a very popular size in both the aftermarket and the OEMs. Even if they are stopped being produced in 5yrs, they are going to be very plentiful on places like Ebay and in Junk yards. Look at all the BMW's, VW's, Honda's, Mazda's, and Toyota's that came with 14x6 stock. 13x7 and 14x7 were never stock wheel sizes for FWD cars and that's why they aren't available anywhere.

I just don't buy a plan that creates a problem now trying to anticipate a problem that may or may not happen several years down the road. Honestly, I'll bet that the current cars that run in ITB and C fields will dry up before the 14x6 wheels do.

Now on the other hand, the CB plans to start migrating more cars from ITA to ITB, and propogating the fields (long overdue) a 7" wide across the board rule change might have more of a point.

Bill Miller
01-20-2004, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
So how would you write the rule?

"All cars with 15" rims and below may run any size width and diamter rim UP TO 7" wide and/or 15" in diameter. Those cars allowed or specified to run 16" or larger must do so."

Horrible? Someone tweek or re-write.

AB




C'mon Andy, you can't expect something so simple and straight-forward to go through!! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Looks good to me!!


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Now on the other hand, the CB plans to start migrating more cars from ITA to ITB, and propogating the fields (long overdue) a 7" wide across the board rule change might have more of a point. </font>

And just why is that Jake?




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

Jake
01-20-2004, 11:16 PM
... because if ITA cars move to ITB, either their wheel stocks become instantly illegal, or they are written exceptions in the rules so they can run 7" wide wheels (which I don't see because it will probably piss off current ITB cars who are stuck with 6" wheels)

Banzai240
01-20-2004, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And just why is that Jake?

Not to scare you all and actually agree with Bill here ( http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif ), but let me ask you this question:

Given the choice of staying in ITA and being an underdog with your 7" wheels, or being moved to ITB where you could compete, the only caveat being that you had to put 6" wide wheels on the car... which would you choose?


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Jake
01-20-2004, 11:22 PM
Good point. I certainly wouldn't have any problem (not even the slightest hint of one) going down to a 6" wide wheel if I was moved from ITA to ITB. In fact, I could probably sell my 14x7's for a very good price! On second thought, let's keep the rules as they are!! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Bill Miller
01-21-2004, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Jake:
... because if ITA cars move to ITB, either their wheel stocks become instantly illegal, or they are written exceptions in the rules so they can run 7" wide wheels (which I don't see because it will probably piss off current ITB cars who are stuck with 6" wheels)


Yeah Jake, that's just great. Move cars from ITA to ITB, don't add any weight to them, and let them run wider wheels than the vast majority of ITB. Why not ask for a turbo too! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif


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

Jake
01-21-2004, 12:06 AM
Bill, that was exactly my point. Thanks for getting it.

Darin, what do you think about Bill's turbo idea?

Banzai240
01-21-2004, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Jake:
Darin, what do you think about Bill's turbo idea?

Jury is still out on that one... how's the availability?? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Quickshoe
01-21-2004, 01:18 AM
APologize for sounding flippant...but here's my 2 cents.

Why not just leave it alone? If the car you are "attached" to has 14's, that is the way it goes.

Just as if the car I am "attached" to has a live axle, carb, drum rear brakes, crappy 4 speed or the front sway bar also locates my lca.

Availability of wheels should not be an issue as you always have the option of running OEM wheels.

If you feel that you can't compete on OEM 14's or you don't wish to spend the money to get custom wheels made then build a different car.

Allowing cars to upgrade to 15's is a competition adjustment as some cars in that class won't get the upgrade.

Bill Miller
01-21-2004, 04:53 AM
Allowing cars to upgrade to 15's is a competition adjustment as some cars in that class won't get the upgrade.



You mean like the ECU rule? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

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

Jake
01-21-2004, 08:30 AM
Quick,

You're sort of missing the point. This is an affordablility issue. 14x7 wheels are available, they just cost an arm and a leg. People with lots of cash will still be able to get them. Now that I think of it, I can get a set of Volk TE-37 made in Japan that only weigh 9lbs each. After shpping they'll only cost me about $2500 - that's only slightly more than it cost me to build my car!

When you imply that if you can't afford to have custom made 14x7 wheels manufactured for your car, build a new car, is so flawed it is ironic. This is probably why there is such overwhelming support for Darin's proposal.

cherokee
01-21-2004, 09:56 AM
No Jake you missed the point...run 14x6's. and leave everything alone you can't get 14x7's too bad. The other thing we can do is make the rule so EVERYONE can take advantage of it if they choose, and then leave it alone. If you do what I suggest you would never ever have to touch the wheel rules for the entire class ever again....GEE stabality in the rules do you think that would be a good thing? It seems like everything from shocks to compression ratio is changed at whim...I feel for all those Opel guys that have 9:1 motors that can't run them now....They where ok only a couple of months ago. AAARRRRGGGG

Jake
01-21-2004, 11:10 AM
I see your point. Either don't do a thing, or do something now that will have longevity. However, I just don't think that widening B/C to 7 now is what B/C wants and it isn't needed now in the immediate future.

However, to support your argument, what I was trying to get at before with the comment about cars going from ITA to ITB was that eventually when classes propogate (again in the longer term) we are going to see more cars with 15's, 16's and 17's in ITB. Limiting them to 6" would be problematic.

planet6racing
01-21-2004, 11:17 AM
So, let them go to 7", but give them a lead trophy to go with it (if they exceed 6"). Something like 150# in ballast. That should level things out. And that must be 150# in ballast, not "well, my car is 150# overweight anyway, so I'll just slap 7" wide wheels on it."

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

Geo
01-21-2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by cherokee:
No Jake you missed the point...run 14x6's. and leave everything alone you can't get 14x7's too bad.

That would be a great way to entice people to come race in IT.


Originally posted by cherokee:
I feel for all those Opel guys that have 9:1 motors that can't run them now....They where ok only a couple of months ago. AAARRRRGGGG

I'm sorry, but the rules are clear that a half point increase is the maximum. If someone started building an engine with a greater increase than that, they should have known the risks that the 9:1 was an error that may be corrected in the future.


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

Geo
01-21-2004, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Jake:
I see your point. Either don't do a thing, or do something now that will have longevity. However, I just don't think that widening B/C to 7 now is what B/C wants and it isn't needed now in the immediate future.

However, to support your argument, what I was trying to get at before with the comment about cars going from ITA to ITB was that eventually when classes propogate (again in the longer term) we are going to see more cars with 15's, 16's and 17's in ITB. Limiting them to 6" would be problematic.

You've got to stop and ask yourself if the relatively under-powered B and C cars would even want larger diameter or width wheels. Both could (and most likely would) make these car slower. The B cars might be a wash.


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

cherokee
01-21-2004, 11:39 AM
That I do agree with...and logic would suggest that the classes are instore for a shuffle, you can't put everything in S, and and not much made in the last 5 yrs will fit in C, we are going to need new blood in the class for it to continue on otherwise it will start looking like prod...it is headed that way know, look how old most of our cars are...but that is byond the scope of this wheel thred. We need to look at what would be viable for the longest amount of time...even if it is a minor hardship now. If we open the wheel rules up then it is settled, put to bed...just like the ECU rule...it left a bad taste in some peoples mouths but something needed to be done.

Knestis
01-21-2004, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by planet6racing:
So, let them go to 7", but give them a lead trophy to go with it ...

This approach scares me a LOT. Every time I start to think that I should try to understand the Production rules, the various levels of preparation and exceptions/exemptions for particular cars makes me run screaming back to IT. It's bad enough as it is with spec-line exceptions and this kind of approach would officially set the category up for REAL competition adjustments.

Maybe we just leave the width question for B and C hanging until there is an outcry similar to that from current ITA 14" wheel users, rather than trying to be proactive?

K

PS - this is a great conversation.

cherokee
01-21-2004, 12:36 PM
"I'm sorry, but the rules are clear that a half point increase is the maximum. If someone started building an engine with a greater increase than that, they should have known the risks that the 9:1 was an error that may be corrected in the future."

Forgive me for building a car to the limit of published rules. What a way to entice people to come to IT. I will just toss that in the pile with the RR shocks. Mark my words...If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.

And do some Opel research...they did come with 9:1 from Germany...Opel was famous for sticking in european parts into US bound cars. And in talking to the people that know more about Opels then I they supplied the doc's proving that....only later it was decided that it was not good enough (have we heard this before)...AFTER THE RULE HAD BEEN CHANGED. It is like changing a speed limit after you passed the sign and then getting a ticket...honst officer it said 70...it only says 60 now...you just changed it, here is your ticket, have a nice day...sucker.

ddewhurst
01-21-2004, 03:19 PM
Some of you need to read this several times & maybe you will get the point because the guys in Production didn't understand the same info back in the 50's & 60's. We are today where they were in the 50's & 60's. Ya want continious CHANGES/CREEPING step up to the plate & build a car for production.

If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.

If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.

If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.

If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.

Back under the Rock http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

planet6racing
01-21-2004, 03:48 PM
Frankly, I don't understand these comparisons to production. This isn't rule creep (imho), just a necessary step that needs to be taken to keep up with the automotive industry. The SCCA isn't going to vendors asking them to maintain an inventory of reasonably inexpensive wheels to keep the IT fields larger. Heck, I don't think they are doing that for anyone (except SCCA Formula and SCCA Sports racers).

Additionally, why is it that some people are so afraid of change? No one is forcing you to change with it. If you want to run your 12.5" X 5.394" wheels, go for it. I've already got 15" X 7" wheels on my car as classed, so the whole change won't help me in the least bit.

As for the lead trophy for 7" wheels, I'm a bit baffled. This would not be a line by line thing. If you run greater than 6.5" wheels in ITB/ITC, you get the trophy. Period. No exceptions. The same rule is used in FC (I believe. It's one of those formula classes) for sequential gear boxes: you run a sequential, you carry an extra 50#.

Banzai240
01-21-2004, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.

Back under the Rock http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

David and others... Come out from under your rocks just long enough to think about this...

Is "rules creep" REALLY why Production is where is is today? I say NO...

Production is where it is today because those making the rules and perpetuating the class didn't have the forsight to adjust the rules for changing times. They failed to see the need to make adjustments to keep up with technology. The result... Production was nearly exctinct because they FAILED to make a place for NEWER CARS! You can't expect to keep a class going with all old cars, unless you are a vintage organization, in which case freezing the rules is a plus...

Today, even with the recent Restricted Preparation rule changes, Production simply can't absorb the technology, wheel sizes, and performance features that are commonplace in todays performance cars. This also prevents it from attracting the INTEREST of potential drivers, as all they see out there are older cars, older technology.

All you have to do is look at the ITA and ITS spec lines, then compare that to EP and FP... You'll notice that only about 15% of IT cars are likewise classified in Production. It simply failed to adjust itself properely to the market.

For IT, we have an opportunity to make very deliberate and select adjustments to the rules that will allow the class to continue being viable in today's market. A group HAS to do this if they want to continue operating the class successfully.

We aren't talking about allowing flares, alternate cams, altered compression ratios, alternate brakes, etc., etc., etc...

We are essentially talking about wheel sizes, shock rules, vehicle weights, and some reclassifications... All of which would ultimately make IT racing more accessible to a wider variety of drivers because the cost would be contained.

The class has never had a guarantee of competitiveness, and that's not likely to change. Nothing that has been proposed here is really going to change that, BUT, it does lend itself to potentially offering CLOSER competition.

IT will NOT go the way of Production, because there are people working on this who will NOT let that happen. I think the ultimate goal is to adjust a few things that need adjusting to keep the class viable and reduce/contain costs, and otherwise, leave the class alone. The only way that this could happen is if we do NOTHING to keep the class interesting and valid...

That being said, I think the bottom line on this wheel issue is simple:

The larger part of ITC and ITB will NOT be effected by the lack of 15x6" wheels, as most would NOT elect to use these, having 14x6" readily available. The real impact will be in ITA and ITS, where the change is really needed.

Therefore, I really don't think that altering the current widths is something that needs to be done. I think it would negatively impact ITB and ITC, and wouldn't effect ITA and ITS at all, the later of which is where the change is really needed.

Bottom line... I'd go with exactly what I proposed and that would be sufficient for many years to come.

Keep the dialog going. It's great to have this kind of really in-depth discussion on these issues...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

ddewhurst
01-21-2004, 04:56 PM
****Is "rules creep" REALLY why Production is where is is today? I say NO...****

Darin, if your going to stick to what you say then please tell me if the following items are CREEP within the GCR/PCS.

Darin, your response options are YES or NO.

A. A system of head restraint 4 to 6 inches behind the trailing edge of the main hoop.

B. The bridge roll cage from Flordia with the side hoops passing through holes in the hood terminating someplace under the hood.

C. Main hoop diagonals with one end attached to the main hoop & the other end attached to the rear spring perch.

Items A, B & C are all items which have CREEPED into Production cars & are illegal untill someone uses a strained & or tortured interpertation of the GCR/PCS. The same $hit WILL HAPPEN in IT once the gates open.

Have Fun http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

cherokee
01-21-2004, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
David and others... Come out from under your rocks just long enough to think about this...

Is "rules creep" REALLY why Production is where is is today? I say NO...



You bet it is. There is no difference between I can't find 14x7's that fit my car and I can't get the stock cam anymore...lets use the replacement part. Next is I can't get my rods, then crank, then cyl head, I cant find my fenders, I need to run fiberglass. We will all come up with all kinds of paperwork to support our claim, but it is the same. You can go around the world one inch at at time. We are talking about making a sweeping rule change because "X"# of cars can't find wheels in their max size...OH they can still get wheels and be within the rules as written but no one wants to come to the table on that, I am a bad guy for suggesting that someone stays within the rules as written. Well if we are going to change the rule lets change it for all IT classes and make them as long lasting as possible, even if it means that some will not take advantage. We can make this work no matter what the part in question is a cam or a wheel. Little changes here and there may sound like a good idea at the time but if it keeps happening that is what turns people off. The worst rules written are the rules that effect only some of the people...ie ECU.

Jake
01-21-2004, 05:07 PM
Amen. Well written Darin!

Turfer
01-21-2004, 05:32 PM
Maybe we are going about this the wrong way.

How about putting the Genie back into the bottle and restricting wheel widths to 6" maximums.

Wheels are then plentiful in the maximum allowed sizes. No big bucks needed for custom 7" wide wheels.

The current owners of 7" wide wheels can increase their race budgets by offloading their wheels on ebay.

Even though competitiveness of a car is not guarateed, it would still be nice to have a somewhat level playing field at a reasonable cost.

Rick

planet6racing
01-21-2004, 05:38 PM
Off load my wheels on E-Bay? Yeah, I'll get a lot for the 3 sets of beatup OEM 15 X 6.5"'s I'm using. Besides, I have yet to find a 15" X 6" aluminum alloy wheel and since the rules won't let me go down in size...

OK, I'm seeing that this all might get heated pretty quickly (I'm starting to feel it myself). Let's all just keep this in perspective, m'kay?

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

Turfer
01-21-2004, 05:49 PM
I figured that would warm a couple of folks.

The point that I wanted to make is I perceive that people who already have the 7" wide wheels like and want to keep the advantage they have.

They do not want others to have an opportunity to purchase wheels at a reasonable price.

Rick

cherokee
01-21-2004, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
They failed to see the need to make adjustments to keep up with technology. The result... Production was nearly exctinct because they FAILED to make a place for NEWER CARS! You can't expect to keep a class going with all old cars,...



We are doing this now...How many v6 Mustangs and cameros do you see...Mitsu 3000...we have all seen that the rules makers think that the car will be to much/too fast too much of that P-word as my wife calls it. I have friends that would love to run a mustang...but not a 4cyl.
Talk about aftermarket support for a fox bodied mustang...it's everywhere, but IT.
But we can keep running our old cars because we have no guarantee. If my 30yr old car slowly slides down from S to C and then runs at the back of C I am cool with that....as long as it can slide easly and easly=cheaply. I don't have to buy new wheels.

Knestis
01-21-2004, 06:34 PM
I don't think that's really an agenda here, Rick - ANY car in A or S is already allowed 7" wheels and NONE of those in B or C are. The ONLY way that this becomes an issue is if a car is moved from A to B - like the MkIII Golf. I didn't for one instant assume that I could run 7" wheels on that car in B just because it had them in A and, to the extent that this question has to be addressed, it can be done on a case-by-case basis during deliberation about whether or not to reclassify a car.

The question of widths is not really at issue here and for my role in sending the topic that direction, I apologize. We got there by worrying about the availablity of 15x6 wheels, thinking about allowing B and C cars listed with 13" and 14" wheels to step up - which really wasn't an issue either: There are no B or C cars currently allowed to run 7" wheels - 14" diameter and rare, or otherwise - so the ORIGINAL question at hand fundamentally doesn't apply to those classes...

...therefore, one option would be an amendment to Darin's original wording limiting the proposed change to ITA and ITS cars. Take a bite-size piece of the issue and worry about 13x6 and 14x6 availability issues if and when they arise.

The alternative is to go with the proposal as originally written and accept that the 15x6 is never going to be common so won't truly be a viable option. Frankly, I don't think it matters at this point, regardless of the concern that I voiced earlier.

K

Quickshoe
01-21-2004, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
You're sort of missing the point. This is an affordablility issue. 14x7 wheels are available, they just cost an arm and a leg...When you imply that if you can't afford to have custom made 14x7 wheels manufactured for your car, build a new car, is so flawed it is ironic. This is probably why there is such overwhelming support for Darin's proposal.

Jake,

The fact is that no one is forcing you to go buy 14 x 7 wheels. They are not required. Similar parts for different cars vary a great deal in cost. I shouldn't go build a BMW for ITS and then complain that the parts for it are too expensive and want the rules changed so that I can afford to develop the car.

I am not in support of Darin's proposal. In fact, I am against any change in the current rule.

From my side of the fence, as long as good DOT-R tires are available in 14's, then a change to the rule isn't called for.

-Daryl DeArman

Bill Miller
01-21-2004, 06:42 PM
The larger part of ITC and ITB will NOT be effected by the lack of 15x6" wheels, as most would NOT elect to use these, having 14x6" readily available. The real impact will be in ITA and ITS, where the change is really needed.

Therefore, I really don't think that altering the current widths is something that needs to be done. I think it would negatively impact ITB and ITC, and wouldn't effect ITA and ITS at all, the later of which is where the change is really needed.

Bottom line... I'd go with exactly what I proposed and that would be sufficient for many years to come.



C'mon Darin, how the hell do you know if the ITB/C folks would 'elect' to use 15" wheels or not? You argued the 'plus size' allowance to get the 16/17/18 inch wheels in for the ITA/ITS guys. I could just as easily (and w/ equal authority) say that the ITA/S guys would NOT elect to run these, having 15x7 available.

You want to be proactive for ITA/S, but not for ITB/C. Looks to me like you're trying to feather your own nest on this one, and the others can pound sand. If you don't think new 14x6 wheels won't be as scare in 3-5 years as 13x6 wheels are today, IMHO, you're sadly mistaken.

As of now, the new Hoosier isn't available in 13", and the smallest 14" size is 225/50/14. Hoosier lists the rim range as 8"-9", w/ their measurements made on a 7" wheel. Kumho doesn't offer its new tire in 13" or 14". Their press release says they plan to release more sizes this year, but down't say what they are. For all we know, they won't offer 13" or 14".

So, if you don't give the ITB folks the 15" wheels, the vast majority won't be able to run on the latest tire offerings from 2 of the big 3 IT tire vendors. However there is one particular car that will be able to run them. Care to take a guess what car that is? It's only been one of the most dominant ITB cars over the last several years, and has won the last 4 ARRCs, IIRC! So, you give what's already deemed by some as a class overdog, the ability to run stickier tires than a large portion of the rest of the class. Yeah, that'll keep 'em happy!

I really don't understand how you can spout the 'proactive' line for the 16/17/18 inch tiress one minute, then pull back when it comes to doing something proactive for ITB/C. Loses some of its altruistic luster, doesn't it?

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

Banzai240
01-21-2004, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
From my side of the fence, as long as good DOT-R tires are available in 14's, then a change to the rule isn't called for.

-Daryl DeArman

Have you checked into this lately??? Hoosier is reducing their offerings in both 13" and 14" as we speak, or so I've been told...

Banzai240
01-21-2004, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Looks to me like you're trying to feather your own nest on this one, and the others can pound sand.

Give me more credit than that, Bill... I already get to run 16" wheels... and I have 3 sets of them... I've nothing to gain by any of this and couldn't afford to take advantage if I did...

I am NOT in disagreement that it would make a lot of sense to allow a 7" wheel across the board, but I'm also realistic on what I think can actually be accomplished. When you start proposing things are are guaranteed to cost people money, the fight gets a little tougher.

I would support a rule that allowed widths of 7" across the board, but it would be a lonely fight.

The wider wheels do go with the industry standard. The question is, should the class? Many of those who would support larger diameters are against wider widths, so what is one suppose to do? It all depends on how reasonble you want to be.

So... How reasonable do you all want to be?



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Bill Miller
01-21-2004, 07:27 PM
Darin,

They seemed to have no problem w/ the ECU rule, and that was definately going to cost people money.

And, I'm the kind of person that will fight for something if I believe in it. I won't settle just because its 'easier'.

And, even if you allow 15x6 in ITB/C, it's going to cost people money. What do you think the ITB crowd would rather do, spend the money, or watch the Volvo get even farther down the track because it can run the latest tires?

You want to do things that will help the long-term viability of the category, and help entice new people to IT, how could you not support a proposal to allow 15x7's across the board?

BTW, it's only going to make the people spend the money if they want to. How many people have said "Hey, if the car you have isn't competitive, either it's not developed, or you picked the wrong car." Talk about making people spend money! A 205/50/15 R3S03 is only $12/tire more than a 205/55/14. A 205/50/15 Kumho Ecsta V700 is actually $1/tire cheaper than a 225/50/14, and only $3/tire more than a 195/55/14 (there is no more 205/55/14). The 205/50/15 VictoRacer is $8/tire more than the 205/55/14. You're talking at most, $150/season (assuming 3 sets of Hoosiers). That's not even the cost of 1 tire! For the Kumhos, it's barely the cost to mount 2 tires!

And, as the others have argued, no one would make you run them.

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

Geo
01-21-2004, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
The alternative is to go with the proposal as originally written and accept that the 15x6 is never going to be common so won't truly be a viable option. Frankly, I don't think it matters at this point, regardless of the concern that I voiced earlier.

I did some soul searching in this regard myself and I concur Kirk. I don't think it matters.


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

01-21-2004, 09:13 PM
There is one point that might make a difference in this argument....
I've done a little searching and after looking at the options available for one car in particular, whether or not the diameter is 14, 15 or 16 the number of available wheels seems to be about the same.
Tires on the other hand, as we all know, have a much larger selection in the larger sizes.

For instance, many of the "old guard" IT cars, which have and will probably be around for at least a while longer, cannot utilize many of todays wheels, even if they are available in the correct lug pattern, simply becuase of the offsets available.
Case in point is the early Datsun Z cars, which, due to their 4x114.3 lug pattern are difficult enough to find, yet, there are many later model cars that have this same lug pattern, but, due to their positive offset, would make them unuseable.

Yes, there are custom made wheels that are on the market, but, if the rules are changed, will this be a fair rule if owner of older cars have to resort to heavier steel wheels if no others (aluminum or alloy) are available, while owners of newer cars can use the latest and lightest alloy wheels?

Just another piece of the puzzle to throw into the "stew" pot....or do we have to change the rules first, then ask for more PCA's in the future, if there are any at all.

Banzai240
01-21-2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I won't settle just because its 'easier'.

Yah, Bill... I'm sure that everyone here would also think that I've opted for the "easy" way out on most of these things... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

Ask anybody on the ITAC just how "easy" I roll over on these discussions...

Give me a break...


Back to the point... Allowing wider wheels in ITB and ITC instantly has a performance impact on the class that is real and predictable. Allowing larger diameter wheels has a performance impact on the class that is almost purely hypothetical and may or may not reveal itself in practice. This HAS to be considered in any conversation about this topic. You can't simply take one aspect of it, like you've done with cost in previous post with cost, and say that because that line of thinking reasons out, the whole thing makes sense. And you can't base a decision on a bunch of hypotheticals.

The aim is to do whatever makes the most sense. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. You'll just have to live with that.

Now, I'd like to address the issue with TIRE availability... Is there any truth to the speculation that 13" and 14" DOT race tires are becoming less available???


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Quickshoe
01-21-2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Have you checked into this lately??? Hoosier is reducing their offerings in both 13" and 14" as we speak, or so I've been told...

Darin,

I hadn't, but now I have. The tire rack has 5 (14") sizes of the R3S03 and 3 of the V700 Victoracer to choose from, in stock ready to ship. I didn't check on the availability of Toyo options from other sources. But more than one option is currently available.

As to future plans, I don't know what each manufacturer has in mind. Currently, I don't see a problem.

Quickshoe
01-21-2004, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by 2Many Z's:
Yes, there are custom made wheels that are on the market, but, if the rules are changed, will this be a fair rule if owner of older cars have to resort to heavier steel wheels if no others (aluminum or alloy) are available, while owners of newer cars can use the latest and lightest alloy wheels?

Would you please clarify? As I understand your post, the wheels are available so you can use the latest and lightest alloy wheels, if you choo$e to do so.

cherokee
01-21-2004, 09:32 PM
"I would support a rule that allowed widths of 7" across the board, but it would be a lonely fight."

Why? Present your case change some peoples minds...that is what this is all about. If you think (and I mean think not feel) that 7" is right then support it lobby for it make your case. 99.9% of us put our ideas out there for debate so we can make the idea better...or to say I never thought of it that way...I will change my mind on this. I don't want to think that anyone would want to put out a rule that would be bad for the class. After looking at the other classes GT,Prod,SS... I think that this is the best place to race...that does not mean that I don't think things could be better.

Jake
01-21-2004, 09:32 PM
I wish I ran a Z-car. The Konig Rewind is available in 14x7 with a RWD offset and a 4x114.3 bolt circle. They weigh about 13lbs a piece and cost less than $100/each. I routinely see 14x7 wheels for the old-guard RWD cars for sale on ebay and other sites from Panasport, Watanabe, and Volk racing.

cherokee
01-21-2004, 09:47 PM
As for tires...13's are kinda hard to find. Not many choices. Move me up to a 14" and they are more available...but to tell you the truth I will keep my 13's as long as I can. I dont think we should put someting in place that would put someone in the same boat as Jake(I think,that was pages ago) is in now. Brake a wheel and not be able to find 13x6's or 14x6's that will fit. (14x6's will be around for me for a very long time I have a real common size)

Jake
01-21-2004, 10:01 PM
Tire availablility is not a problem in 13" and 14" sizes. We can thank Solo II and for this - there is much demand for 14's and 13's there. In fact, any serious competitor in Solo II's popular street prepared class is running wide 13" wheels. So even if some IT cars move to larger diameters, it may not effect demand as much as you may think.

All the latest major R-compounds are supporting them, don't be misled just because some are rolling out the smaller sizes this summer after the initial launch. Here's some examples:

Hoosier R3S04:
185/60ZR13 (March 04)
205/60ZR13 (March 04)
225/45ZR13 (Feb 04)
195/55ZR14 (June 04)
205/55ZR14 (Feb 04)
225/50ZR14 (available now)


Kumho V710
This summer they are adding
205/55VR14
225/50VR14
and others (they plan to replace the Ecsta V700 with these and the V700 offers 3 flavors of 13" tires)

Hankook Ventus Z211:
205/60VR13
195/55VR14
205/55VR14
225/50VR14

Bill Miller
01-21-2004, 10:05 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Allowing wider wheels in ITB and ITC instantly has a performance impact on the class that is real and predictable. Allowing larger diameter wheels has a performance impact on the class that is almost purely hypothetical and may or may not reveal itself in practice.</font>

Ok Darin, you're so sure of yourself. Show me some emperical data that supports your claim of this 'real and predictable' performance inmpact. I asked the question earlier about tire wear/performance issues between two very similar cars, one in ITA and one in ITB (16v and 8v A2 Golfs).

And, I was speaking about myself when I said I didn't settle because it was easier. I said nothing about you. So you can give me a break w/ your melodrama. However, since you said you would support 15x7 wheels across the board, it won't be so lonely afterall, as I'll support it as well. I'll count on your vote in favor when I send the letter in.

Quickshoe,

While there may be several of the older Hoosiers and Kumhos available in 14", look at the new offerings from each comapny. Hoosier has one, and Kumho has none. And the Hoosier is really too wide for a 6" rim.

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

Bill Miller
01-21-2004, 10:10 PM
Jake,

Where's the data from? I didn't see anything about any of the new sizes of either Hoosier or Kumho on the TireRack site.

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

Banzai240
01-21-2004, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Ok Darin, you're so sure of yourself. Show me some emperical data that supports your claim of this 'real and predictable' performance inmpact.

Bill,
I don't know much about FWD cars, and I think you know that I don't have a pile of "emperical data" sitting around on this particular topic...

HOWEVER, I have been around a bit and can answer your question by stating one...:

If tire supply and sizes was not in question, and you had the option of using up to a 7" wide wheel, would you choose a 6" wide wheel? If there is NOT a performance difference, and all these 240Zs could run the more plentiful 14x6" wheels instead... why don't they?

I know of VERY few drivers who would say YES to that one...

Otherwise, it doesn't take much analysis to see that a tire will have a wider and flatter contact patch on a wider rim, etc., etc....

Also, we are discussing all the options here, and I don't believe I've said anywhere so far of what I would or wouldn't do in this situation, given the options. I'm trying to be realistic about the entire situation and this discussion has been good for bringing many issues to the surface that otherwise might have gone overlooked or less-considered.

I would sincerely like to see more data on tire size availability for the near term, because that would certainly be a concern.

I'm still open to the possibility of opening up rim diameters, but at this point, I still am not sure it would be a necessary thing to do. It needs to be discussed further.

That's what this is suppose to be about. There is no sense in picking apart every word I type and trying to find the flaws in my logic. Let me make things easier for you... I'm human, and will admit readily to having MANY flaws in my logic...

Let's keep this constructive and bring some solutions to the surface...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

01-21-2004, 11:15 PM
Well Jake, the Konig Rewinds are no longer in production, and the guy on Ebay that bought a pile of them and was offering them is now out....
Yes, Panasport still has wheels available, and you can probably get them from Keizer if you wanted to spend the big bucks....Diamond Racing will make up some decent steel wheels, which, I've seen quite a few of on Spec-7's already.

I guess the point is this, if you are on a budget, and are buying used wheels now to get the proper lug pattern/offset,what are ya gonna do 5 years from now if you choose to keep the car? For some cars it's not all about diameter, it's about the lug patterns and offsets. I'm sure the Z cars aren't the only ones that have lug patterns and offset needs that are in short enough supply now....

I believe the early Supra wheels will also fit(lug pattern and close to 0 offset), but, there is the buying used wheels of unknown condition again.

Jake
01-21-2004, 11:26 PM
You people really need to learn how to research stuff on the net.

Darin and Bill,

Hoosier availabilty dates come courtesy of Bob Woodman Tires:
http://www.bobwoodmantires.com/hoosier/hsr...sortsradial.htm (http://www.bobwoodmantires.com/hoosier/hsrsortsradial.htm)

Kumho is very responsive when you email their motorsports division.

Z- I'm not talking about the "guy on Ebay" - there are several resellers still selling the Rewinds. The Rewind is actually a Rota design, and Rota is actually looking at expanding the line (according to their rep at SEMA). The used wheel market is filled with lightweight examples - I can find you a few sets cheap if you want.

Jake
01-21-2004, 11:35 PM
Bill, are you implying that 7" wide wheels may not give a benefit over 6" wide wheels? You must be joking. Also, please try to research stuff a little better before you mislead people about things like tire availabilty.

If fact, speaking of research, why don't one of you open a thread asking ITB/C drivers if they would support increasing wheel widths to 7". I was going to do it myslef, but I wouldn't want to misrepresent your stance.

Banzai240
01-21-2004, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
You people really need to learn how to research stuff on the net.

Hey Jake,
Thanks for the information... "Perhaps we could do without the wise-cracks..."

(Who can name the movie?? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 21, 2004).]

Knestis
01-22-2004, 12:29 AM
Ticka-ticka-ticka-ticka-ticka-ticka

This just in...

"OPM autosport told me today that the are getting Team Dynamics to build 14x7 Pro Race 1 wheels for the 88-91 CRX for ITA. Price for the rims has not been set but should be much less then Panasports."

http://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=741706

K

Bill Miller
01-22-2004, 07:56 AM
I would support a rule that allowed widths of 7" across the board, but it would be a lonely fight.



I don't know Darin, but that sure looks like you said what you would do re: a rule that would allow everyone to run a 7" wheel.


Jake,

I stated when I originally posted that data that it came from the TireRack site. Not trying to 'mislead' anyone. And as far as the other sizes being here later, I'll believe it when I see it. Remember the G-Force fiasco a couple of years ago?

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

Banzai240
01-22-2004, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I don't know Darin, but that sure looks like you said what you would do re: a rule that would allow everyone to run a 7" wheel.


Yup... if that turns out to be an option that makes sense, I will...

BUT, if it turns out to be something that doesn't make sense... I'm still open to changing that stance.

Point is, is that I don't have my head burried in the sand here and I'm not just taking a position and blindly defending it. I'm open to discussing this until it comes time to actually make a decision, which isn't now... so let's keep talking about it. How about we focus on the topic, and less on trying to pin me into a corner...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 22, 2004).]

Jake
01-22-2004, 10:17 AM
K - interesting and timely.

However, that's the 5th time in the last two years that a manufacturer promised a limited production of an inexpensive 14x7 wheel in 4x100. I hope that this time it pans out.

Bill Miller
01-22-2004, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Yup... if that turns out to be an option that makes sense, I will...

BUT, if it turns out to be something that doesn't make sense... I'm still open to changing that stance.

Point is, is that I don't have my head burried in the sand here and I'm not just taking a position and blindly defending it. I'm open to discussing this until it comes time to actually make a decision, which isn't now... so let's keep talking about it. How about we focus on the topic, and less on trying to pin me into a corner...



I'll give you credit (yet again), you're turning into quite the politician. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

And, I'm not trying to pin you into a corner. If you don't like people taking you at your word, you should think about choosing your words a bit more carefully. This is hardly the first time you've said something, only to backpeddle on it.



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

Jake
01-22-2004, 07:55 PM
Bill, it was perfectly clear what Darin meant. I think you're doing a good job at being a polotition by taking a sound bite out of a logical argument and trying to twist it.

I also would be in favor of a 7" wide rule for B/C if that is in fact what the majority of B/C drivers wanted. Let's start a poll and see what the membership wants.

In fact my first choice would be to open up wheel choice by allowing any diameter for each class. However, I think Darin's proposal is the least disruptive and most fair idea that solves the problem at hand.

ddewhurst
01-22-2004, 08:31 PM
Darin, are ya into selective reading or selective responses ?

****Is "rules creep" REALLY why Production is where is is today? I say NO...****

Darin, if your going to stick to what you say then please tell me if the following items are CREEP within the GCR/PCS.

Darin, your response options are YES or NO.

A. A system of head restraint 4 to 6 inches behind the trailing edge of the main hoop.

B. The bridge roll cage from Flordia with the side hoops passing through holes in the hood terminating someplace under the hood.

C. Main hoop diagonals with one end attached to the main hoop & the other end attached to the rear spring perch.

Items A, B & C are all items which have CREEPED into Production cars & are illegal untill someone uses a strained & or tortured interpertation of the GCR/PCS. The same $hit WILL HAPPEN in IT once the gates open.

Have Fun http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

Knestis
01-22-2004, 08:46 PM
It's off topic and you didn't ask me but I'll have an opinion anyway. You're not the boss of me. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

My working definition of "rules creep" is when the rulesmakers - and rules enforcers - incrementally give stuff away in the name of micro-level logic, having lost sight of the bigger picture.

One way this works is when each little change might have a completely reasonable rationale but the SUM of those changes over time tips the total change way past the paradigm in place when the rules were created. Comparing IT cars of 1984 with those of 2004, removal of headliners, aluminum door panels, trim removal, and a bunch of other allowances fall into this subcategory.

Another mechanism is in force when entrants push the envelope of interpretation a little and are allowed to - equally incrementally if not more so - shove the operative definition of what is legal beyond not only what the rules "intended" but what they actually say. I think this is the case with the examples cited above (EDIT - that D. cited above) but importantly, this is not the fault of the people writing the rules. We all take responsibility in this case because we are our own enforcement mechanism. Now, if I protest a wacky cage and then appeal a finding that it is legal, the issue may end up back with the same group of stakeholders who wrote the rule but it's always impressive to me how few of these questions get to that point.

Finally, it might be the case that some creep is the result of increased availability, decreased cost - or likely both - of emerging technology. It sounds funny now but spherical bearings fall into this category, as do 'real' coilover suspension systems (sleeves or not).

The short answer might be, "yes - those MIGHT become examples of rules creep, if they are allowed to become standard practice and de facto legal."

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited January 22, 2004).]

Banzai240
01-22-2004, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Darin, are ya into selective reading or selective responses ?

Yes David, I have had selective responses this week, because I'm about to enter a conference call with the CRB and there are priority issues to deal with.

To give you my quick answer to your question... NO, none of the examples you posted are what I would consider "rules creep", becuase the written rules did not ALLOW them to exist. What you are describing here is "interpretation creep", where people have decided to twist and mangle what the CCR/PCS states and use their interpretation to their own advantage.

I have no input or control over what Production does with their rules, so this really should be taken up with them. If they don't want to enforce their own rule package, that's their problem.

We will, however, do our best to learn from their "mistakes" and try our best to avoid going down that road.

Bottom line, however, is that if the rules don't adjust to meet changing demands, the class WILL go the way of Production...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 22, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 22, 2004).]

ddewhurst
01-22-2004, 10:43 PM
****My working definition of "rules creep" is when the rulesmakers - and rules enforcers - incrementally give stuff away in the name of micro-level logic, having lost sight of the bigger picture.****

Kirk, we agree on one thing. I will even describe micro-level logic as not wanting to cause alienation with the GOOD OL BOYS. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif & all three of the items I mentioned are with reference to three of the GOOD OL BOYS. All three of the items are safety items relative to the roll cage.

Have Fun http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

cherokee
01-23-2004, 09:34 AM
It's Politics man politics.

ddewhurst
01-23-2004, 01:57 PM
****Posted by Darin****

****To give you my quick answer to your question... NO, none of the examples you posted are what I would consider "rules creep", becuase the written rules did not ALLOW them to exist. What you are describing here is "interpretation creep", where people have decided to twist and mangle what the CCR/PCS states and use their interpretation to their own advantage.****

A quote by someone else.... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Language is a treacherous thing...and generally more dangerous than race cars.

Have Fun http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

Banzai240
01-23-2004, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Language is a treacherous thing...and generally more dangerous than race cars.

It's not the language that is dangerous, it's those applying/interpreting it that cause all the problems...

Unless, of course, someone drops a GCR on your head... THAT could be dangerous... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

ddewhurst
01-23-2004, 05:20 PM
Darin, please step away from the word games & answer the following question.

When I read GCR rule 18.1.2 my understanding of the rule is that the integral or non-integral headrest construction and or implementation location is the creation of a system of head restraint to prevent whiplash and rebound, and also to prevent the drivers head/helmet from striking the underside of the main hoop.

If my understanding of GCR rule 18.1.2 is correct please confirm.

If my understanding of GCR rule 18.1.2 is not correct please provide your understanding of the rule.

Have Fun http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

Geo
01-23-2004, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Darin, please step away from the word games & answer the following question.

When I read GCR rule 18.1.2 my understanding of the rule is that the integral or non-integral headrest construction and or implementation location is the creation of a system of head restraint to prevent whiplash and rebound, and also to prevent the drivers head/helmet from striking the underside of the main hoop.

If my understanding of GCR rule 18.1.2 is correct please confirm.

If my understanding of GCR rule 18.1.2 is not correct please provide your understanding of the rule.

Have Fun http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

1. What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Do you always jump into other's conversations with totally random thoughts?

2. Darin didn't write the rule. In fact, it's not even Darin's job to interpret this rule (other than for himself as a racer).

3. If you have a technical question about the rules, I strongly suggest you write to the appropriate person or board. The SCCA has two technical people on staff for club racing for answering questions just like this.

4. If you have another question or point here, it's not clear at all.


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

Banzai240
01-23-2004, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
If my understanding of GCR rule 18.1.2 is correct please confirm.

If my understanding of GCR rule 18.1.2 is not correct please provide your understanding of the rule.

David,
I haven't the power to "comfirm" that your understanding is "correct"... That would be the job of the BoD or CRB or CoA or some other ruling authority...

I can, however, offer that I understand the rule to be exactly as it reads...


GCR 18.1.2.
"A System of head restraint to prevent whiplash and rebound, and also to prevent the driver's head from striking the underside of the main hoop shall be installed on all vehicles"

It's pretty clear... (don't panic guys... he's referring to Production rules, not IT rules... well, not yet anyhow...)

What does this have to do with IT and WHAT kind of verbal trap are you trying to set me up for here??? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif Why do I have a feeling the next set of questions deal with a bunch of 30+ year-old cars with drivers who sit in the drop-top stowage area and directly UNDER their main hoop???

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 23, 2004).]

Bill Miller
01-23-2004, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
1. What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Do you always jump into other's conversations with totally random thoughts?

2. Darin didn't write the rule. In fact, it's not even Darin's job to interpret this rule (other than for himself as a racer).

3. If you have a technical question about the rules, I strongly suggest you write to the appropriate person or board. The SCCA has two technical people on staff for club racing for answering questions just like this.

4. If you have another question or point here, it's not clear at all.





Watch it David, it's the forum police!!! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif


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

ddewhurst
01-24-2004, 02:25 PM
Geo, you the cop on the Rules & Reg wheels thread ? I copied a sentence from another poster & suggested what was going to happen to Improved Touring if people continue CREEPING the rules.

The copied sentence:

***If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.***

Then I suggested:

***Some of you need to read this several times & maybe you will get the point because the guys in Production didn't understand the same info back in the 50's & 60's. We are today where they were in the 50's & 60's. Ya want continious CHANGES/CREEPING step up to the plate & build a car for production.***

Then a couple of your pals commented & I responded. Did you jump in their stuff for responding ? Can't jump in their stuff because a couple of the WHEEL poster are on the ITAC. You bet I took the subject on a tangent off someone elses posted sentence.

Geo, for your benifit I did write the Comp Board on the head restraint issue & they responded that the roll cage padding as spected is ok. The freken rule says nothing about roll cage padding.

***Posted by Darin***

***It's pretty clear... (don't panic guys... he's referring to Production rules, not IT rules... well, not yet anyhow...)***

Darin, the rule is the same for IT as the rule is for Production. & if the rule has CREEPED (which it has CREEPED because Tech
inspectors do not understand the rules & or don't care about SAFETY rules. If I can take a 2 by 4 & whack 2 roll cage tubes on a IT or Production car & your head at the same time the roll cage is not SAFE.) in Production it will also CREEP in IT.

***Why do I have a feeling the next set of questions deal with a bunch of 30+ year-old cars with drivers who sit in the drop-top stowage area and directly UNDER their main hoop???***

It was/is going no further Darin. The drop top 30 year old stuff you describe above is ILLEGAL.

The point is head restraints are ILLEGAL when intergal or non-intergal head restraints allow the helmeted head to strike the underside of the main hoop of the roll cage for either IT cars & or Production cars.

Being that you like to present your understanding of rules I simply asked you a question as a person & not as a ITAC member.

Bill, those boys in Texas continiously CREEP the Spec-7 rules. That's why they have the fastest Spec-7's in the country. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

David

Turfer
01-24-2004, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
K - interesting and timely.

However, that's the 5th time in the last two years that a manufacturer promised a limited production of an inexpensive 14x7 wheel in 4x100. I hope that this time it pans out.


I checked with my supplier, who contacted the US rep for the Mfg in Kirk's link, and the response was that nothing is currently in the works.

Seems to be just one more urban legend.

Rick