PDA

View Full Version : Rule change - 15" wheel allowance?



Knestis
07-17-2004, 02:18 PM
Someone mentioned that a recommendation is headed for the Board that all IT cars be allowed to run at least 15" wheels. Where was this publicized? It seems like a really major thing that hasn't surfaced here. Which FasTrack is this one in?

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited July 17, 2004).]

jc836
07-17-2004, 02:26 PM
I argued for this last year. Let's hope they reconsider as the availablility of 14" wheels from a number of manufacturers has dwindled yet again with the loss of American Racing's entry that I use (heavy but works).

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

Banzai240
07-17-2004, 09:34 PM
Kirk,

We've been discussing this here for MANY, MANY months...

You'll find mention of it in the following release of Fastrack:

May 2004 Fastrack (http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/04-05-fastrack-Runoffs.pdf)



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

Knestis
07-17-2004, 10:16 PM
Thanks, Darin. I knew that the conversation had been started but I totally missed the official action on it.

K

EDIT - Now am I really confused, or does that bulletin say "not recommended?" I was under the impression from that earlier post here that it is headed to the board for final approval. Someone straighten me out.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited July 17, 2004).]

Geo
07-17-2004, 11:47 PM
This issue is NOT in front of the BOD yet. It's in front of the CRB. If the CRB approves it will got to the BOD.


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

Banzai240
07-18-2004, 12:53 AM
Last I heard, the CRB had accepted the up to 15" wheel part of the recomendation...

Likely not in a timeframe to have it make the latest Fastrack, so I'm not sure what that means as far as getting it to the BoD for the August vote... Either way, the item is definately in the works, so it will be part of the decisions being made this year...

This item was also part of the strategic planning, so it's possible that it will be included in part of that decision making.

We'll let you all know for sure when we do. Again, it would be a great idea for all of you to write with your support... especially to your Area Directors...

[email protected]

------------------
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 July 18, 2004).]

Knestis
07-18-2004, 08:48 AM
Okay - I don't feel so much like I missed something.

I guess what confuses me is (a) how IT racers - those who don't visit it.com, anyway - are supposed to know about this and (B) precisely what it is that we are supposed to be supporting. I do, by the way, think that this is an excellent idea but without seeing the actual wording of the proposal that is on the table, I'm a little hesitant to endorse it.

I'm puzzled too about the strategic plan. Typically, true "strategic" decision making wouldn't include specific decisions about things like wheel size. Instead, they would explicate the bigger principles to which future rules-making activities would be aligned.

I ABSOLUTELY believe that we need this kind of thinking applied to IT, given how much the category has evolved. However, if the "strategic plan" is actually going to be a comprehensive package of detail rules - tactical- and operational-level decisions - a LOT of questions arise:

Will the regular rules-changing process be applied to it? How (and when in the process) will it be presented to the membership? Will clauses be considered individually or only as a package (the issue of severability)?

I still have some confidence in the "new" world of IT but obviously have some concerns.

K

Geo
07-18-2004, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I guess what confuses me is (a) how IT racers - those who don't visit it.com, anyway - are supposed to know about this and (B) precisely what it is that we are supposed to be supporting.

The proposal in front of the CRB (unless they approved it after our last conference call where it was still in the air) was in direct response to a member letter.


Originally posted by Knestis:
I do, by the way, think that this is an excellent idea but without seeing the actual wording of the proposal that is on the table, I'm a little hesitant to endorse it.

In short, cars currently required to use wheels smaller than fifteen inches will be allowed to use wheels up to fifteen inches (but it's not required).


Originally posted by Knestis:
I'm puzzled too about the strategic plan.

We're starting to crawl on this one. We are also in limbo temporarily since we don't have a committee chair at the moment. This situation will be resolved soon. I think we need a chair to set the tone and agenda. I know we have been preaching patience. Please extend us a bit more.

On the whole I think the IT community has been happy with the moves we've made so far (unless I've really missed something) and I think better things are coming, but things do happen somewhat slowly. But we are not autocratically run and that's a good thing, but it makes the process slower, especially when the members are part-time volunteers.


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

Knestis
07-18-2004, 04:14 PM
Not bitching here - just trying to understand...

The only letters that I could find addressing wheel diameter referenced in FasTracks (Myers, Fisher) were "not recommended at this time." It was my understanding that the CRB only determines "aye" or "nay" on member requests, so what process translates "not recommended" rule change proposals into action by the board?

Is this only because the club racing strategic plan is in play?

I'm also not being critical of the time required to get things done. These things should be well considered and that takes time.

K

Jake
07-18-2004, 07:42 PM
Hmm.. cool - this is the first post that I've heard about something actually happening. I recall 300+ replies to a post of mine a while back and a wholesale rejection of the idea in Fasttrack - something like "this change isn't needed at this time". I'm glad to see that it all wasn't in vein.

Maybe when I get a rejection in Fasttrak - it really isn't a rejection. Maybe they are going ahead with it anyway! Since the MR2 -> ITB proposal was rejected twice just this year, maybe it's on its way. Woohoo!

Jake
07-18-2004, 07:45 PM
Now I just wish I didn't pay those hacks so much to glue my 14x7 wheel back together. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

BTW - don't tell Team Dynamics about this. They just spent a bunch of cash custom designing and producing 1000 14x7 4x100 lightweight wheels. They may be rather hard to sell soon.

Greg Amy
07-18-2004, 09:30 PM
Jake, can you offer any more details on those wheels, like prices and a URL reference? I'd love to get a set of lightweight 14" wheels for the soon-to-be-ITA car...

Geo
07-18-2004, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Not bitching here - just trying to understand...

I know.


Originally posted by Knestis:
The only letters that I could find addressing wheel diameter referenced in FasTracks (Myers, Fisher) were "not recommended at this time." It was my understanding that the CRB only determines "aye" or "nay" on member requests, so what process translates "not recommended" rule change proposals into action by the board?

Is this only because the club racing strategic plan is in play?

That's not a simple answer. The honest answer is we don't have a formal strategic plan yet. I would say that one will likely emerge from current discussions. But, keep in mind there are a lot of differing opinions not only in the IT community as a whole, but even within the ITAC so it's anything but cut and dried.

In this case the specific imepetus was another member letter. You see, sometimes things get rejected, even multiple times, but if the membership is persistent enough, the committee members can be convinced to change their position.


Originally posted by Knestis:
I'm also not being critical of the time required to get things done. These things should be well considered and that takes time.

Yep. I know where you were coming from. To be honest, if we can get a real strategic plan formulated it will probably be after all of this year's open business is settled. But we're having some discussions.

[edit to add info left out initially]
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited July 18, 2004).]

Knestis
07-18-2004, 10:19 PM
OPM is the only outlet for the new TD wheels - try them at 770-886-8199, Greg.

EDIT picture links...

http://www.we-todd-did-racing.com/wetoddimage.wtdr/wNDcyMTczNnM0MTNkZmQzMXk1NDE%3D.jpg

http://www.we-todd-did-racing.com/wetoddimage.wtdr/wNDcyMTc0NnM0MTNkZmQzMXk1NDE%3D.jpg


K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited July 18, 2004).]

gran racing
07-19-2004, 08:17 AM
The change in ruling - it would only allow for an increase in size and not a decrease, correct? Or could you use any wheel size no matter what is OEM?

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

ITSRX7
07-19-2004, 09:03 AM
TD shouldn't have a problem. The rule is to open up the supply line for legal wheels for everyone. We have all agreed that going up in diameter and NOT in width (as the rule is written) would provide no performance advantage.

So, more choices, no advantage. Good, right?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Banzai240
07-19-2004, 09:08 AM
The recommended rule change was to allow all cars currently listed with 13/14" wheels to upgrade to a 15" wheel. This should help with any "wheel availability" issues...

If your car is currently listed with 14" or 15"... there is no provision or intention to allow you to go smaller...

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

Tom Donnelly
07-19-2004, 10:19 AM
George,

Before I get started; I'm not against the change, I'm actually for it. I think it might be an opportunity. And I'm not trying to start another heated argument, just trying to raise some issues.

But...

I'm not so sure about the "no performance advantage". If you go to Hoosier's website and look at the specs on the tires available between 15 and 14. The difference in circumference (ie travel distance) varies from no difference to a 6" difference. Thats enough for a 7 mph difference (on paper) without changing any gear ratios. (3.90:1 diff @ 5500rpm, 71.5: vs 77.1") And the track varies from no difference to a 2" increase. Theres alot to play around with there. And alot of potential dollars spent on comparing the two. ($700 a set for panasports and I already have 3 sets)
Making the change would also cost alot more than the RR shock setup for my car that some of us had to just toss in the basement.

Have y'all looked into the development costs with a change like this? Or is it just, "if you don't want to change, don't". A lot of people without RR shocks didn't like being told that when confronted with that new cost.
How is this any different?

For me, I'd wait and see before I change. I have too many sets of tires and wheels. But as the sets dwindle, I'll spend the money to test with 15's because it may make some difference. And that one test session is going to cost $700 tires + $700 wheels + $150 for a test day. And if it works, add another $3000 on top of that for spares and a set of rains just to stay competitive.

This "little","no advantage" change has the potential of costing about $5000.

Those RR shocks were just $2700 for my car.

Tom

Greg Amy
07-19-2004, 10:58 AM
Hey, Tom, not to start a pissing match, but how is going to a larger-circumference wheel an advantage? Aren't most folks looking to shorten their gear ratios whenever possible?

Given the option, I will never change to 15" wheels as long as 14 inchers are available, because I NEED that shorter wheel for the gearing (and I don't have near the options or flexibility of final-drive changes that the rear-drivers do.) 15" wheels would also lead me towards clearance problems with my fenders and struts. Finally, 14" wheels and tires weigh less than 15" (given same section and width.)

GA

Tom Donnelly
07-19-2004, 11:43 AM
Greg,
If I went to a slightly taller tire, and since there is a limited number of ratios available for my car, I could test with the tire height and ratios to find an optimal combination for a particular track that I can't get with my current tires. Like switching from a 3.90 to the 3.73. With the 3.73 at Road Atlanta for example, 2nd is just too much for turn 7 and 3rd is not enough. 3rd is almost perfect in 7 with the 3.90 and a 4.11 is too. But the 4.11 doesn't have the legs down the back straight, so the 3.90 is a good compromise. And there are other numerically lower ratios to try with the R180 diff that might work really well with just a slightly taller tire that is still a 50 series and not a 60 series (which has been tried). And also, at least with the hoosiers, there is a 15" tire that is the same height as my current setup but a little over an inch wider which should help in cornering and braking. At least this is what I've been speculating.

And I could be wrong about the whole thing. I was kinda hoping someone could shoot holes in the whole idea so I could stick with my current setup for now. I'd like to buy an enclosed trailer.

Can't you just let me blame this all on George?

Tom

Jake
07-19-2004, 11:48 AM
Guys - Just to clarify - I want to make sure that the way the rule is written it will allow cars with a 13" wheel to upgrade to a 14" wheel. This is really important because all the ITB+C people stuck with 13" wheels will find 14x6 wheels VERY easy to find, but may not be able to locate 15x6" wheels easily.

Thanks!
Jake

m glassburner
07-19-2004, 11:49 AM
I think it should be based on wheel width ,per class!! You want to run 17's go ahead...but stay within your width for your class you want to run 14s or 13s go ahead!! I've been noticing 15s are starting to become more diffucult to find...IMHO

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif mike g.

Banzai240
07-19-2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
Guys - Just to clarify - I want to make sure that the way the rule is written it will allow cars with a 13" wheel to upgrade to a 14" wheel.

The wording says "up to 15"... so 13" would be able to legally run 14" or 15"...


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

Tom Donnelly
07-19-2004, 05:01 PM
Greg,

I forgot to add this. Does your Nissan have the same bolt pattern as a 240z? If it does and z-cars go to 15's (I think they run 15's in e-prod) you may have a cheap source for some nice panasports ultra-lites or other wheels. 240's have a 4 by 4 1/2 like an MGB or old six cylinder Mustangs. I don't recall the offset, I'd have to check that.

You're right about the weight disadvantage.

Tom
(still waiting for someone to point out where I'm wrong so I can buy that enclosed trailer instead)

gran racing
07-19-2004, 05:59 PM
This may be silly, but will opening the wheel allowance make it harder to get tires for those of us who still want to run 13" wheels? One of the main purposes of this rule (as I understand it) is to make it easier for people using 13" or 14" wheels. I'll definately admit it, I had a heck of a time locating decent 13" rims. For that matter, I couldn't even get steel 13" rims for my FWD car. I happen to get lucky with some help and find some decent rims.

I just wonder if this will almost back fire a bit. Now people are not as likely to hunt for the 13" rims, therefore demand for 13" tires decreases. It inturn hurts those of us who already have 13" wheels. Currently 14" wheels are plentiful, so there isn't a concern there.

Just a thought on the drive home...

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

Knestis
07-19-2004, 06:06 PM
The catalyst for this, way back when, was the rarity of 14x7 wheels - primarily for all of those FWD ITS/ITA cars out there.

K

Banzai240
07-19-2004, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:
This may be silly, but will opening the wheel allowance make it harder to get tires for those of us who still want to run 13" wheels?

I can assure you that there isn't likely to be any issue brought up here that hasn't already been discussed in GREAT DEPTH by the ITAC, concerning this issue... In fact, much of our discussion stemmed from discussions we've had here with you all! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Availability was raised as a concern, and as I recall, the manufactures told us that they have no intention of stopping the manufacturing of 13"/14" tires as long as there is a need.

That being said, we are all already seeing the writing on the wall as far as these sizes go, with fewer options being offered in both rims and tires in this range as new models hit the market.

This conversation ends up being a chicken or the egg deal of sorts... Are we causing the demise of the smaller sizes, or is the demise of the smaller sizes causing us to change?? I think either way you look at it, the change in inevitable, and we should update the class at a reasonable point to aviod having to make reactionary decisions that aren't well thought out...

From what I've heard from this board, and at the track, there is a vast majority of you out there that would welcome this change, and we have gone forward with the recommendation based on that perception, as well as carefully considering the supply and demand issues involved.

------------------
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 July 19, 2004).]

Jake
07-19-2004, 08:22 PM
Kirk - 13x6 wheels are getting nearly as rare and expensive as 14x7.

Dave - not sure I follow. In your example you need to get 13x6 wheels. If demand for these go down - they'll get easier for people like me and you to get these used on eBay as others as other move to 14x6 and 15x6 wheels. As for new - the only manufactuers build these custom to order at great expense - those choices will still most likely be around.

This in all is a WIN-WIN for everybody. Instead of getting junky eBay 13x6 wheels - you can get a new set of 14x6 wheels from the local pep boys for under $200/set!

gran racing
07-19-2004, 09:01 PM
Not talking about the wheels. Talking about the tires. For example, Hoosier and the new compound. This past year I didn't care because I was uncompetitive in ITA. BUT if I were in ITB I'd certainly care more. Just a matter of supply and demand. If demand goes down, what incentive is there for Hoosier (or any other co.) to bring 13" tires to the market place?

Yeah, I know. It is legal to change gearing but it is also very, very expensive. Just like it is legal to use new tires after every race.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

gran racing
07-19-2004, 09:04 PM
HEY! Junky 13 x 6 wheels? But you found them for me...Besides they are VW wheels and kinda blue. That's gotta be good for .5 seconds in B, right?

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

Jake
07-19-2004, 09:26 PM
<--- Duh! Sorry for not reading your post completely. I still think support for 13" and 14" tires will stay, at least with the Hoosiers - just like you said - some people will choose to use 'em.

JeffYoung
07-19-2004, 09:46 PM
Is availability really an issue? I run 13s in ITS, and had no trouble getting 13X7 Panasports at about $150 a piece. Expensive, but are they that much more than other rims? Paying $110 or so for Miata rims so I don't think so, in the grand scheme of things. Besides, if I wanted to, I can always get a set of stock rims off ebay for a couple hundred bucks. They are 5.5 wide and 205s fit on them just fine.

Since I am convinced that it is ITA/IT7 RX7s, and the sheer numbers of them, that drives Hoosier to release its best tires in 13s and come up with crazy sizes like the 225/50/13 etc., if you allow the ITA7/IT7 cars to move to 14 and 15", then the 13" tire supply will dry up. Everyone is going to go with bigger rims -- most people think, for whatever reason, that they are "better."

I know the intent here is good, but I just have a bad feeling about this change. I don't see any problem in getting 13X7 and 14X7 wheels if you look, although they are becoming sort of racer-specific but I'm not sure what is really wrong with that.

Jeff

Geo
07-19-2004, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
This conversation ends up being a chicken or the egg deal of sorts... Are we causing the demise of the smaller sizes, or is the demise of the smaller sizes causing us to change?? I think either way you look at it, the change in inevitable, and we should update the class at a reasonable point to aviod having to make reactionary decisions that aren't well thought out...

Indeed!

And let me point out that the proposed rule change will give you choices where today you have none.



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

CaptainWho
07-20-2004, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
had no trouble getting 13X7 Panasports at about $150 a piece. Expensive [...] Since I am convinced that it is ITA/IT7 RX7s, and the sheer numbers of them, that drives Hoosier to release its best tires in 13s and come up with crazy sizes like the 225/50/13 etc., if you allow the ITA7/IT7 cars to move to 14 and 15", then the 13" tire supply will dry up.


As someone on 13" tires in an ITA/IT7 RX-7, I won't be going to larger wheels until I can't get tires. Why should I? I've got three sets of 13" rims that work just fine and are light, too. The $150 each for Panasports is very little different than I'd pay for Kosei K-1s or something from Team Dynamics or Diamond or whoever. I'm sure cheaper wheels are out there, but I want a proven track record before I put my life in the hands of a tire or wheel manufacturer, just like any other part of my car.

------------------
Doug "Lefty" Franklin
NutDriver Racing (http://www.nutdriver.org)

JeffYoung
07-20-2004, 03:41 AM
I agree Doug, but I think a lot of people out there will go for the bigger wheels because...they are bigger. I can tell you now that when I was buidling the car I thought bigger wheels were necessarily better -- now I understand they are really just cheap gearing and that what matters is width.

I don't care what they allow so long as Hoosier continues to supply the best tires in 13X7 sizes.

dickita15
07-20-2004, 08:38 AM
ok a few random thoughts that i feel need to be part of the discussion.

choice is good, but if the new choice is faster (and i don't know if this one is) serious drivers will have to buy the faster choice.

the reason for considering this change is valid. if parts are not available at a reasonable price, such as 14 x7 wheels, our rules should make racing easier.

the one thing that i have not heard discussed is struts. my ita rx7 runs modified struts that corrects the lower control arm geometry. i am sure other makes do this as well. think of it as a drop spindle. the amout that i can add to the bottom of the stut is limited by interference with the wheel. if i was allowed to run 15" wheels instead of 13"s i could gain another inch of geometry correction. so it is possible that this change would have the uninteded consequence of makeing me buy new struts as well in order to optimize my set up.

dick patullo

Knestis
07-20-2004, 08:53 AM
The suspension question is a good one, Dick. It seems like overall diameter will be the real issue but it's worth wondering about.

K

dominojd
07-20-2004, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Tom Donnelly:
Greg,

I forgot to add this. Does your Nissan have the same bolt pattern as a 240z?

I'll answer this. The NX 2000 and Sentra SE-R are both FWD and have a 4/100 bolt pattern. The 240 is RWD which has different offsets and has a 4/114 bolt pattern.



------------------
Crazy Joe
#7 ITS pilot

oanglade
07-20-2004, 11:45 AM
The September Fastrack is out and it has wording about allowing cars with 13" and 14" wheels to run up to 15" wheels starting next year.


------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

Tom Donnelly
07-20-2004, 05:30 PM
I could be wrong but it seems more that just cheap gearing. Because of the limited allowable gearing for any car per the spec line, it possibly increases the options since those "gear" combos weren't legal or available.

Dick worded it much better than I. If it is a faster option, and that is an unknown, then it is something that people may eventually change to, some quicker than others based on budget, driving style and a stopwatch.

Like Greg said, "I'm not trying to start a pissin' contest", it just seems that it is a performance related enhancement.

And at least from what I read, tire width can increase too.
Tom

jhooten
07-20-2004, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by dominojd:
I'll answer this. The NX 2000 and Sentra SE-R are both FWD and have a 4/100 bolt pattern. The 240 is RWD which has different offsets and has a 4/114 bolt pattern.



Actually it is 4 on 4.5" and near 0 offset. The only reason I know this is the 240 guys can use my wheels with slight alterations.

Being one of the fortunate few that have both 14 and 15 inch wheels listed in the spec line for my car (85 Supra) the rule change makes little difference to me. BUT finding either a 14X7 or 15X7 with anything near 0 (-8mm) is not an easy thing to do. I may have to end up buying spacers or adapters at about $300 an axle to allow me to fit FWD offset wheels.

And tire choice is not that great in a dot tire either. Stock tires for my car are 225/60-14. The only fit I have found so far is a 225/50-14. A bit shorter. And they get eat up fast. The camber is NOT adjustable. Factory spec is 50'+/- 45' and I am at the - end of it. In other words 0 degrees. Camber plates are not an option until coil overs become legal because the stock diameter springs only clear the tower by the width of a finger.

So we make do the best we can with what we got.


Tom,

As it is now tire size is "unrestricted".

[This message has been edited by jhooten (edited July 20, 2004).]

Banzai240
07-20-2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by jhooten:
Camber plates are not an option until coil overs become legal because the stock diameter springs only clear the tower by the width of a finger.

Tom,

If your car has struts... (I'm assuming it's an 84 or so Supra???) which I'm sure it does, then doing a coil-over conversion on your struts IS legal... you just can't have the threaded sleeve permenantly attached to the housing... Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are referring to???

If the BoD votes like I believe they will, then true threaded-body coilovers will be legal on cars where we previously had to add a threaded-sleave, so this should further improve your choices of struts and will make it easier for the average person to install a set...



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

Knestis
07-20-2004, 06:44 PM
FWIW, the wording of the rule allows cars with 13s or 14s to use 15s - there is no provision that would allow someone with 13" wheels to use 14s.

K

Catch22
07-20-2004, 07:23 PM
I think its a great idea although it doesn't really help me at all. Until Hoosier builds a 205/40/15 (which isn't likely) I need the 13s to maintain my crappy 4 speed gearing.

So, I get nothing out of it and STILL think its excellent progress that will help many people. I know first hand how friggin hard it is to get 13x6 wheels without spending $200ish each, which is frustrating as hell when folks are buying 15" wheels that are just as light for $110.
Widths haven't changed, so I don't see where a performance advantage will be had. The ITB guy who crams a 225/45/15 tire on a 6" wide wheel isn't going to end up with any more contact patch than he had with his 225/50/14s. Just a shorter sidewall (which likely ends up losing its benefit by being pinched so badly on the wheel.

I think it simply opens up a whole bunch of options that weren't there before. I've already been to the Hoosier website and cross referenced some various diameters to the gear ratio table on the Houseman website and learned that this rule change does diddly squat for me. But you know something... It was nice to have the option to check all of that out.

Quickshoe
07-20-2004, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:
The change in ruling - it would only allow for an increase in size and not a decrease, correct? Or could you use any wheel size no matter what is OEM?



Contrary to what others have quoted the rule does not say "upto".

I'd like it to because then I could utilize 13's instead of the OEM size of 14's. So as it is proposed I could utilize either 14's or 15's, but not go down in size.

Banzai240
07-20-2004, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
I'd like it to because then I could utilize 13's instead of the OEM size of 14's. So as it is proposed I could utilize either 14's or 15's, but not go down in size.

The intent was NOT to allow you to downsize wheels, but rather go up...

I do believe our intent was to allow 13" to run either 14" or 15", and for 14" to run 15"... I'll look into that because I'm pretty certain that's what we agreed on.

As for going down sizes (14" to 13"...), that was never the intent of the rule and not what we were shooting for. (it's also a pretty tough sell to use availability as a selling point, then say we want to be able to go DOWN to the sizes that we say are getting tough to find... Not exactly the makings of a strong argument...)

------------------
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 July 20, 2004).]

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

gran racing
07-20-2004, 08:03 PM
I read the wording in Fastrak and based on the way I read it, a car that is using 13" wheels can use 15" wheels. Again, just based on how I read it and know others will read it the 13" wheel can not be replaced with 14" wheels.

Yes I know, Darin said that in this situation 14" wheels would be allowed. But that's not how I read it now. I'd hate to have people protested because of this in the future.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

Banzai240
07-20-2004, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:
Yes I know, Darin said that in this situation 14" wheels would be allowed. But that's not how I read it now. I'd hate to have people protested because of this in the future.



Stay tuned, because I have a note in with the rest of the ITAC to see what the deal is with this... I'm about 95% certain we intended for 13" to be able to run 14" or 15"... If that's the case, we'll get the wording corrected...

Quickshoe
07-20-2004, 08:40 PM
Thanks Darin.

jhooten
07-20-2004, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Tom,

If your car has struts... (I'm assuming it's an 84 or so Supra???) which I'm sure it does, then doing a coil-over conversion on your struts IS legal... you just can't have the threaded sleeve permenantly attached to the housing... Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are referring to???

If the BoD votes like I believe they will, then true threaded-body coilovers will be legal on cars where we previously had to add a threaded-sleave, so this should further improve your choices of struts and will make it easier for the average person to install a set...



The local rules nerd told me the springs had to be the same diameter as the originals. If I can go to a smaller diameter spring and perches on the struts then the camber plates will work. Got plenty of time to get it figured out. Racing is done till after the run offs. (you guys get snow, we get melted asphalt)

Jake
07-20-2004, 09:11 PM
Here’s the wording:

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

Certainly needs to be fixed to help the ITB & C folk stuck with 13x6 wheels.

Jake
07-20-2004, 09:21 PM
BTW - The real effect of this change?

Expect to see a LOT of 2-driver Spec Miatas running in ITA next year.

Knestis
07-20-2004, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by jhooten:
The local rules nerd told me the springs had to be the same diameter as the originals. ...

Huh?

K

Diane
07-20-2004, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
If the BoD votes like I believe they will, then true threaded-body coilovers will be legal on cars where we previously had to add a threaded-sleave, so this should further improve your choices of struts and will make it easier for the average person to install a set...

Didn't they make threaded bodies illegal for IT just a few years ago? Why on earth would they change it back so quickly?

Can you tell I'm getting caught up on stuff? <sigh>

Diane

Banzai240
07-20-2004, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by jhooten:
The local rules nerd told me the springs had to be the same diameter as the originals.

OK, just a little advice... GET YOUR OWN GCR and READ IT YOURSELF! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Not putting you down, but you've now become one of the "Dupped"... Be careful who you listen to, and know enough about the rules yourself to question any advice...



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

Banzai240
07-21-2004, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by Diane:
Didn't they make threaded bodies illegal for IT just a few years ago? Why on earth would they change it back so quickly?

Can you tell I'm getting caught up on stuff? <sigh>

Diane



The short of it is that there are large varieties of racing shocks available out there in "affordable" packages, but they have been, up to now, illegal for IT because the threads for the coil-over were permanently attached to the housing. Those with the means purchase these, turn off the threads, then add threaded sleeves back on... Clearly, this just doesn't make sense. It was time for a change, and it looks like it's going to happen.

I believe this has all kinds of up-side for IT, and very little negative effect. Hopefully you all feel the same. Judging from your letters, I believe you do.

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

Diane
07-21-2004, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
The short of it is that there are large varieties of racing shocks available out there in "affordable" packages, but they have been, up to now, illegal for IT because the threads for the coil-over were permanently attached to the housing. Those with the means purchase these, turn off the threads, then add threaded sleeves back on... Clearly, this just doesn't make sense. It was time for a change, and it looks like it's going to happen.

I believe this has all kinds of up-side for IT, and very little negative effect. Hopefully you all feel the same. Judging from your letters, I believe you do.




Actually you missed my point I think. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

IIRC threaded bodies were either legal or a grey area a few years back. Pre-2002. Or was it just a grey area? My 2001 GCR is not here and I don't have any from 1998-2000

I'm not saying it's not a good change. However, if they made threaded bodies illegal in 2001/2 and are changing their minds so quickly, that's not good.

Maybe it was just a clarification at that time?

Diane

jhooten
07-21-2004, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
OK, just a little advice... GET YOUR OWN GCR and READ IT YOURSELF! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Not putting you down, but you've now become one of the "Dupped"... Be careful who you listen to, and know enough about the rules yourself to question any advice...



OK, I have a 2002 when I started building the car and a 2003 which came out 2 months later and the 2004 and we are done with it now that the 2004 points year is over.
I do know how to read american english but must admit I am a little weak in automotive jargon and rules legaleese. So I asked one of the old hands what the spring rule means. Guess that's what I get for wanting to do things right the first time and not have to redo stuff over and over and over again.

As a side note, Old Guys, if you don't know say so instead of blowing smoke up the new guys body openings, thank you very much. You'll gain more respect in the long run.

Hey wait, I'll bump up to ITE then I can do what ever I want (almost) and it will be legal) http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif And with an average starting grid of 1.78 instead of the 5.68 for ITS I can get points faster. Yipeeeee!

Greg Amy
07-21-2004, 09:24 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Maybe it was just a clarification at that time?</font>

Diane, I suspect it has more to do with the apparently significant changes in attitues within the organization. Dare I sound optimistic, and say that a lot of things that are happening are - HORRORS! - "responsive" to membership input...?

<knock on wood>

Knestis
07-21-2004, 09:24 AM
Contributing to the wander off topic...

Back when the "no threaded body shocks" rule came to be, it was to keep people from using then-exotic hardware that had to be custom made for production-bodied cars. I don't remember when that clause was added but it was quite some while ago - 15 years or so.

The SOP then was an aftermarket strut/shock/insert that used stock perches and big ol' springs of a higher rate.

Clever people got around that by using a threaded sleeve over a shock/strut, that uses small diameter "racing springs." The net result was that we could buy off-the-shelf Eibachs or HyperCoils for $50-70 a throw rather than having to find someone to wind a decreasing radius spring at what MIGHT be the right rate.

I was baffled by the comment that someone - ostensibly in a decision-making position - said that the spring had to be the stock diameter. That's just wrong and I don't know where in the hell it came from.

K

ITSRX7
07-21-2004, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Jake:
BTW - The real effect of this change?

Expect to see a LOT of 2-driver Spec Miatas running in ITA next year.

And I think that is a GREAT thing for IT participation numbers.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Al Seim
07-21-2004, 11:36 AM
Darin:

Yes, please, if you can, get the wording fixed so us 13x6 ITC guys can run 14x6. As I'm sure you know, the VWs can't really be lowered in IT trim, so the 15s are really too big for us (IMHO). Plus, 14x6 OEM wheels (GTI snowflake, etc) are plentiful and cheap.

Thanks!
Al Seim
VW 1.6 Scirocco

[This message has been edited by Al Seim (edited July 21, 2004).]

jhooten
07-21-2004, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Contributing to the wander off topic...

I was baffled by the comment that someone - ostensibly in a decision-making position - said that the spring had to be the stock diameter. That's just wrong and I don't know where in the hell it came from.

K

I could tell you the story of my fuel sample port and tech but that would really be off the subject.

Geo
07-21-2004, 01:21 PM
Diane,

Are you perhaps confusing the threaded body issue with the remote reservoir issue?


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

Knestis
07-21-2004, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by jhooten:
I could tell you the story of my fuel sample port ...

Ah, who cares if it's off topic. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

I've heard stories of every possible argument: You CAN'T have it in the engine compartment, you MUST have it in the engine compartment, you CAN'T have it in a high-pressure line, you MUST have it in the feed line from the tank, you CAN'T carry the hose in the passenger compartment, you MUST carry it in the passenger compartment. You name it.

K

lateapex911
07-21-2004, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Ah, who cares if it's off topic. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

I've heard stories of every possible argument: You CAN'T have it in the engine compartment, you MUST have it in the engine compartment, you CAN'T have it in a high-pressure line, you MUST have it in the feed line from the tank, you CAN'T carry the hose in the passenger compartment, you MUST carry it in the passenger compartment. You name it.

K



Yeah...you hit the mark on this one...its comical...ask three officials and get 5 options!

Dick Patullo quips about the SCCA, "Ask an official, and if you don't like the answer, you asked the wrong official! Go find another and ask them!" ....or something like that!



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

Diane
07-21-2004, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Diane,

Are you perhaps confusing the threaded body issue with the remote reservoir issue?





Quite possible. Did that take place during the time I mentioned? Just call it temporary old-timers or something.... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif