PDA

View Full Version : Nov Fastrak out



924Guy
10-04-2004, 04:42 PM
What, am I the only rules geek who noticed?
http://scca.org/_Filelibrary/File/04-11-fastrack.pdf

ITB, here I come!!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

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

planet6racing
10-04-2004, 05:18 PM
Holy wow, Batman! Congratulations to the ITAC!! Too bad this didn't happen 4 years ago. I'd have a Neon and a little more money in my pocket! (well, OK, I'd just have a neon! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif )

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

itracer
10-04-2004, 05:43 PM
"Item 5. Based on the performance potential
of the 1982-84 Volkswagen Scirocco, the IT
Advisory Committee and the Club Racing
Board is recommending that the car be
reclassified from ITB to ITC, effective 1/1/05."

I thought someone said (in a previous thread) that only the 1.7L Sciroccos were headed to B?

This clearly implies ALL Sciroccos, since they were pretty explicate on the Rabbits:

"Item 10. Based on the performance potential
of the 1981-84 Volkswagen Rabbit 1.7L, the
IT Advisory Committee and the Club Racing
Board are recommending that the car be
reclassified from ITB to ITC, effective 1/1/05"

So am I off to C or staying with B?


------------------
Jason
ITB 17 (NER SCCA)
VW Scirocco

Banzai240
10-04-2004, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by itracer:
So am I off to C or staying with B?





Should be 1.7L only at this time...


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

JeffG
10-04-2004, 06:25 PM
Will any additional adjustments be made for 05 that are yet to be published?

RSTPerformance
10-04-2004, 06:53 PM
Nice looking 14" wheels for sale... EVERYWHARE ACROSS THE COUNTRY... CHEEP CHEEP...

Raymond "How can I can fit 15" wheels..." Blethen

Banzai240
10-04-2004, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by JeffG:
Will any additional adjustments be made for 05 that are yet to be published?



We are working on a few that we hope to get in prior to the December BoD follow-up voting, aside from the above-mentioned correction and a correction to the new wheel allowances to place an "up to" between the "fit" and the "fifteen"...




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

JeffG
10-04-2004, 08:29 PM
Darin, Thanks for the info. It looks like a fine start, although I'd expected to see some ITA and ITS leveling weight adjustments. I guess there will always be more to come.

Thanks to the ITAC for all the hard work!

Jeff

Greg Amy
10-04-2004, 08:44 PM
Wah-hooey!!!!

Banzai240
10-04-2004, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by JeffG:
... although I'd expected to see some ITA and ITS leveling weight adjustments. I guess there will always be more to come.

Thanks to the ITAC for all the hard work!

Jeff

You're welcome...

Everyone keep in mind... PCAs are NOT Competition Adjustments, and were NOT meant as a means of making "everyone equal", or otherwise to "level" the fields... They are in place to prevent OVERDOG situations. When a car is reclassified, that is the legal IT means of a CA... The PCAs are there to correct that reclassification, should we get the weight wrong.

You may see some initial attempts to adjusts a few cars in their current class, but don't expect to see year-by-year adjustments like you do in Production. That's NOT what PCAs are, and is NOT how we intend to use them.

Still... looks like 2005 should be interesting to watch... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



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

Knestis
10-04-2004, 10:24 PM
Mr. Blethen - remember that the real issue is in ITA (and to a lesser degree now, ITS) where 7" wide wheels are allowed. They are harder than hell to find. ITB-spec 14x6" options ? No problemo. In fact, the opposite is going to be true - 15x6" wheels are pretty rare.

K

Catch22
10-04-2004, 11:32 PM
Sorry to go off topic for a second...

Darin,
I sent in a request to move the 88-91 Civic/CRX DX to ITB about 3 weeks ago. I did this about an hour before my computer crashed, taking my hard drive and all the comparison numbers I had dug up with it.

Did you guys get that request? I've sent a couple of emails to the board asking this very same question but have gotten no response.
I just want to know if I need to resend the request. I think I actually posted my numbers on here somewhere, so I can probably dig them up for a cut and paste.

This was one of those "That car is obviously in the wrong class" situations (aka: low fruit) and I was hoping this could maybe get on the list for 2005.
I know I know... But I always aim big.

Banzai240
10-05-2004, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by Catch22:
I just want to know if I need to resend the request. I think I actually posted my numbers on here somewhere, so I can probably dig them up for a cut and paste.


You might want to check with Jeremy Theonnes, Tech Manager, Club Racing ( [email protected] ), or his assistant, John Bauer ( [email protected] )...

I haven't seen any letters concerning this group of cars as of yet. Jeremy or John usually posts them on our SCCA ITAC site for review as soon as they process them and assign them a number, and, like I said, we haven't seen this particular one yet...

Definately follow up...

Good Luck!



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

joeg
10-05-2004, 07:37 AM
We are working on a few that we hope to get in prior to the December BoD follow-up voting, aside from the above-mentioned correction and a correction to the new wheel allowances to place an "up to" between the "fit" and the "fifteen"...

Yes Darrin, that is an obvious necessary correction.

I spent some time looking at batteries on the Internet today...

(This is cool; haven't had this much fun since we were allowed to remove passenger seats)

Cheers.


[/B][/QUOTE]

Banzai240
10-05-2004, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by joeg:
I spent some time looking at batteries on the Internet today...



You can thank the CRB for that one... We had no idea they were going to do that...

Can you even GET a gel-cel automotive battery that is "approximately" the same weight as a stock one???


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

joeg
10-05-2004, 09:54 AM
Can you even GET a gel-cel automotive battery that is "approximately" the same weight as a stock one???


Optimas are not real lightweights.

I'm going to check them all, however.

Catch22
10-05-2004, 10:54 AM
Thanks Darin. I'll follow up at those addresses.

downingracing
10-05-2004, 11:37 AM
OK, So if I read this correctly, the 94-95 Civic EX is moving from ITS to ITA at 2305?

------------------
Matt Downing
ITS Honda Civic EX (soon to be ITA!)
Ohio Valley Region, SCCA
www.downingracing.com (http://www.downingracing.com)

gran racing
10-05-2004, 12:04 PM
Yeah Baby!!!!! Waaahoo!

Time for daddy to buy the baby Prelude some new running shoes! (or Hoosiers?)

It is great to see the Civics moved to ITA. That and the other car changes should open the doors for many people to more easily become involved in club racing with vehicles that they have easy access to.

Can’t wait to order the “B” for my car. (I’m just a bit excited)

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13
'87 Honda Prelude si
NOW ITB!!!

JeffYoung
10-05-2004, 12:10 PM
To the Board, thanks for the hard work guys. These changes make a lot of sense to me.

Ron Earp
10-05-2004, 12:15 PM
Do your tires get to be wider with this 15" rule?

If not, why change? I don't want a tire with a larger rolling diameter as that will effective drop my R&P ratio.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

Banzai240
10-05-2004, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by rlearp:
Do your tires get to be wider with this 15" rule?



Tires can be whatever width you can fit... Wheels for ITB/ITC are still limited to 6" width...

I think it might be difficult to find 15x6" wheels for many cars, but no one says you have to change, and 14x6's are still plentiful...

Just a trade-off in trying to update the rules while still trying to protect the investments of those that have them...

Hopefully, this will give people more options to choose from...

Good Luck all...



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

tderonne
10-05-2004, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
You can thank the CRB for that one... We had no idea they were going to do that...


And what standard must a replacement lead acid battery meet? Alternate construction batteries must meet the new "approximate" verbage. I guess it would be 100% bone stock or one of alternate construction? My Batteries Plus replacement not being legal anymore? Look in my service manual (it calls for a 500 amp battery - no dimensions or group number.)?

Sounds like you (the ITAC) are already on the case?

JeffYoung
10-05-2004, 01:13 PM
Darin, just to clarify for Ron, the maximum wheel width for ITS will still be 7" correct?

If so, Ron, the widest wheels you can run in ITS are 13X7, 14X7 and 15X7. This will give you some cheap gearing choices (for example, I may buy a set of 15X7s for the rain and for Daytona and Charlotte) but maximum tread width (225 on a 7 inch rim) will not change.

Jeff

Racerlinn
10-05-2004, 01:28 PM
Item 3, reclassifying:
"ITS 1991-93 Nissan Sentra SE-R to ITA at a weight of 2490lbs."
I assume the omission of the 1994 model year was an oversight that needs correction?

------------------
Steve
'92 ITA Sentra SE-R
www.indyscca.org
http://www.indyscca.org/photos/04-27-03/P1/thumbnails/04_27_03b.jpg

Geo
10-05-2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Racerlinn:
Item 3, reclassifying:
"ITS 1991-93 Nissan Sentra SE-R to ITA at a weight of 2490lbs."
I assume the omission of the 1994 model year was an oversight that needs correction?




Yes. I went into it quite a bit. Looks like I'll just write a letter to correct it, that way it won't fall off the radar screen. Slam dunk.



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

Bill Miller
10-05-2004, 05:52 PM
Good job guys. The shock rule and the wheel rule just flat out make sense. Now it's time to work on allowing all classes to run 7" wide wheels.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> They are in place to prevent OVERDOG situations</font>

Darin,

This bothers me a bit. Why won't they also be used to help some of the bottom feeders in a class that are deemed 'too fast' to get moved down?

And ITA has now effectively become IT2. It's just that there are still a lot of true ITA cars (like the AW11 MR2 and 1st gen RX7) that just got pushed farther down the results sheet.

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

lateapex911
10-05-2004, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
It's just that there are still a lot of true ITA cars (like the AW11 MR2 and 1st gen RX7) that just got pushed farther down the results sheet.




Yeah....It's not working out exactly as I had hoped!


On the battery thng..I looked into gel cels, etc, of "the same size" and man, are they HEAVY! And EXPENSIVE! So, I just put the crappiest battery that fit the description in. Turns out the cheap battery is also the lightest! For once, I don't have to pay more, for less!

The difference was going to be nearly 20 pounds heavier and $70 more! Oh well....


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

ITSRX7
10-05-2004, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:


And ITA has now effectively become IT2. It's just that there are still a lot of true ITA cars (like the AW11 MR2 and 1st gen RX7) that just got pushed farther down the results sheet.



Except it isn't exclusionary. 2 seaters and RWD are still part of the class. IMHO, this is a way better solution (still a work in progress) than IT2 that was, in effect, it's own class and not really part of the IT fabric.

I'm just glad we can get some of the IT2-type cars into a fair spot.

AB

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

Diane
10-05-2004, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Racerlinn:
Item 3, reclassifying:
"ITS 1991-93 Nissan Sentra SE-R to ITA at a weight of 2490lbs."
I assume the omission of the 1994 model year was an oversight that needs correction?



Does this mean a logical progression of the 1.6L to ITB? I don't know the weight they run at in ITA currently.



------------------
ITB Escort GT
NER

itafiero
10-05-2004, 08:38 PM
Cool deal. Now maybe they'll look at the ITA Fiero again. :-)

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

tderonne
10-05-2004, 09:09 PM
So, I just put the crappiest battery that fit the description in.
[/B]

Read the FasTrack again. They did away with the same size, type, and voltage verbage. There is no longer a desciption of what lead acid battery to use! You (and I) could well be illegal (as written).

Banzai240
10-05-2004, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Why won't they also be used to help some of the bottom feeders in a class that are deemed 'too fast' to get moved down?

Just to clarify what I was saying... Like with the Neons, which were reclassified PENDING PCAs, when you move a car down, you risk creating an overdog... That's where PCAs come in.

Of course, there are a few cars (very few, actually...) that are overdogs now, and PCAs are meant to deal with that as well...

The GCR/ITCS already cover adjusting weight with a reclassification... PCAs can then be used if that weight was misjudged...

There MAY be an initial effort (not promising anything, as I'm speaking only for my own wishes, and not necessarily those of the ITAC and CERTAINLY not for those on the CRB...) to adjust a few cars in class ("bottom feeders"), but this will be one of those "rare occasions" mentioned in the wording of the rule... It all depends on what conclusions the ITAC comes to as a committee, and then how the CRB receives those recomendations...

Hopefully this explains things a bit better...

------------------
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 October 05, 2004).]

Bill Miller
10-05-2004, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Except it isn't exclusionary. 2 seaters and RWD are still part of the class. IMHO, this is a way better solution (still a work in progress) than IT2 that was, in effect, it's own class and not really part of the IT fabric.

I'm just glad we can get some of the IT2-type cars into a fair spot.

AB



I guess I'm going to just have to stop using the term "IT2"

Andy,

I think that Kirk's original IT2 concept went by the boards almost 2 years ago. I've always used the term to refer to the top of ITA and the bottom of ITS, the place where we needed a new class. And a new class is what's essentially been created.

The bottom cars in ITS have been given redress, by being moved to ITA, but there are many cars in ITA that have not been given redress, they've just been pushed farther down the grid.

Andy, I'm sure you and the rest of the ITAC discussed the addition of a new class. I'm really curious as to what the major reasons that concept was rejected?

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

Banzai240
10-05-2004, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy, I'm sure you and the rest of the ITAC discussed the addition of a new class. I'm really curious as to what the major reasons that concept was rejected?



From my standpoint, I just see no reason why these cars can't be made to be competitive in the 4 classes we have now...

But... remember that IT Intent statement before you guys go getting too riled up... We can't possibly make everyone happy...



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

Geo
10-05-2004, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Diane:
Does this mean a logical progression of the 1.6L to ITB? I don't know the weight they run at in ITA currently.

Have Tim write a letter to the CRB. I personally think it's a logical move.

[edit] No reason you can't, so no slight intended. It's just that Tim's the one with the car. Then again it's not IT legal anyway.

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

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited October 05, 2004).]

Bill Miller
10-06-2004, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
From my standpoint, I just see no reason why these cars can't be made to be competitive in the 4 classes we have now...

But... remember that IT Intent statement before you guys go getting too riled up... We can't possibly make everyone happy...




Well Darin, you and others have gone to quite a lot of effort if IT is just "a place to race your car". As I've said before, the only reason that that archaic passage was kept was so that it could be trotted out as a reason not to deal w/ an issue.

As far as 4 classes being enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree. But, I'm sure that the folks that are driving AE86 Corollas, AW11 MR2s, and 1st gen RX7s would like to know how you're going to make their cars competitive.

I submit that there would be actually less work for you folks (ITAC and CRB) if a new class were introduced between S and A. I base that on the fact that you wouldn't need to look at moving as many cars from A to B, and from B to C.


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

Diane
10-06-2004, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
Have Tim write a letter to the CRB. I personally think it's a logical move.

[edit] No reason you can't, so no slight intended. It's just that Tim's the one with the car. Then again it's not IT legal anyway.



No, that one is not IT legal in it's current state. It was a curiosity on my part. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Diane

RSTPerformance
10-07-2004, 02:24 AM
The battery rule says similar not the same. Similar is so vague it really leaves you legal no matter what. If it still makes the car work than it is similar to the original one. Therefor it is legal. If it was not similar it wouldn't make the car work. Once again the ITC screws up and eventually someone will get protested for interpreting the rule. As far as I am concered your legal if the car works.

Stephen

Geo
10-07-2004, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
Once again the ITC screws up...

Stephen, please get your facts straight.


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

Ron Earp
10-07-2004, 07:35 AM
Being new I remember seeing the issue of weight being added to various cars. I remember the BMW well, and I think one other. Is this where this sort of rules change can happen? I looked at it but didn't see anything like that.

So folks can have cars moved around by requesting and then the board voting on it. What if a board member asks to have a car moved or something else done to it, do they vote? Seems that could get tricky as it could be the case someone would want a car in a lower class but is on the board, I suppose they abstain.

Banzai240
10-07-2004, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
The battery rule says similar not the same. ... Once again the ITC screws up and eventually someone will get protested for interpreting the rule.

It's amazing to me how much trouble educated adults have with figuring out what the most basic terms mean... For some reason, once they are placed in the GCR/ITCS, these words suddenly morph into something no one has ever recognized before... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

Guess what people...??? Group 24 vs. Motorcycle battery... NOT SIMILIAR in size or weight... Group 26 vs. Group 24... SIMILIAR... It's not that hard to figure out. If you want to run the Motorcycle battery, be my guest, but I'm guessing your competition won't have too much trouble figuring out what "similiar" means, and they damn well SHOULD protest you.

If you have a problem with the way the rule is written, guess what... it's been published in Fastrack for several months, pending BoD approval. You've all had months to review this and think about it... Rather than take the "bitch first, ask questions later" approach, how about focusing your energy toward something production, like typing a note to the CRB and "voicing" your concerns.


Oh, and... what George said...


Originally posted by Geo:
Stephen, please get your facts straight.



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

Banzai240
10-07-2004, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by rlearp:
So folks can have cars moved around by requesting and then the board voting on it. What if a board member asks to have a car moved or something else done to it, do they vote? Seems that could get tricky as it could be the case someone would want a car in a lower class but is on the board, I suppose they abstain.

I can explain this better in person...

Feel free to e-mail me privately and I'll send you a number where you can reach me:

Banzai240 "AT" yahoo "dot" com



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

planet6racing
10-07-2004, 08:57 AM
Well, it's brought up in the 15th post in this thread, but I'll repeat it here because Darin and Geo were being nice.

The battery issue was brought up by the CRB, not the ITAC. The CRB took it to the BOD. The BOD approved it after waiting a period of time for member comment. THE ITAC HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT BEING BROUGHT UP AND VOTED ON!!!

OK, I feel better now.

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

Banzai240
10-07-2004, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by planet6racing:
OK, I feel better now.



http://www.rx7club.com/forum/images/smilies/yelrotflmao-vi.gif



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

JohnRW
10-07-2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Now it's time to work on allowing all classes to run 7" wide wheels.



Why ?

Bill Miller
10-07-2004, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by JohnRW:

Why ?


Why not John? As ITA cars get moved to ITB, it seems silly that they have to go buy 8, 12, 16, ??? new wheels. Do you think that having 7" wheels in ITB or ITC would be a performance advantage? I doubt it would be, and I doubt that you could shove more than about a 225 under most of the ITB/C fenders. Not to mention that wider tires aren't necessarily faster, after a certain point.

lateapex911
10-07-2004, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Why not John? As ITA cars get moved to ITB, it seems silly that they have to go buy 8, 12, 16, ??? new wheels. Do you think that having 7" wheels in ITB or ITC would be a performance advantage? I doubt it would be, and I doubt that you could shove more than about a 225 under most of the ITB/C fenders. Not to mention that wider tires aren't necessarily faster, after a certain point.

Yeah but..........

Don't you think that, as an ITB guy, it kinda sucks to have my world upended by new guys coming in, and now you want me to buy all new wheels so they don't have to?????

Uhhhh...... no dice! The class is the majority. The newcomers the minority. Stupid to require the majority to bend over, open thier wallets for the minority.

Listen, if they move me to B, and the weight is appropriate, I will gladly buy new wheels. But I would be embarrassed if the rest of the class had to instead!

(Now if it comes to pass that 6x13, 14 or 15 inch wheels become unavailble, but 7" versions ARE, then it's another story...but that aint happening for quite a while.)



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

Bill Miller
10-07-2004, 09:18 PM
Jake,

Nobody would have to buy 7" wheels. And I don't really see it as any difference than allowing everyone to run at least 15" wheels.

Does anybody have any hard data (same car, same tire, but 6" vs. 7" wheels, or even wider version of the same tire) that shows just how much (if any) a performance advantage the wider wheels are?

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

dyoungre
10-07-2004, 09:37 PM
IMHO, I don't think you could get any hard data to show that 7" is better than 6", if the same tire that you fit under your fender can be forced onto the smaller rim. I believe it is more subjective, effecting turn in and confidence. A Ford/Cart/F1 chassis engr told me the following rule of thumb: you want the contact patch to equal the rim width. Since we are all beyond that, I assume more is worse: more sidewall roll, more instability, etc. Hard data is going to be tough (impossible) to come by. Rule of thumb? Pontiac is right: Wider is better.

------------------
Dave Youngren
NER ITA RX7 #61

lateapex911
10-07-2004, 10:24 PM
Good point Dave, but I'm not entirely sure the guys reference relates to our world of "street radials"... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

We did an experiment a few years back in the days of autocrossing. Same car, two drivers, same wheels, same tires, sets of different tire sizes. We swapped back and forth, adjusting pressures and tweaking for each set.

Finally, at the end of the day, both divers were a half second faster on the smaller tire with the higher sidewall! (175/70/13, vs 185/60/13) even though the "larger" tire was lower and should have provided better CG as well as better gearing.

Even at the Solo II Nationals, the 175 tire was on all the front runners.

We surmised (and informal chalk tests helped confirm it) that the wheel, (max allowable at 5.5") was just not wide enough to "present" the larger tire with its shorter sidewall to the pavement as well as the smaller taller tire. We think the smaller tire was more consistant in its contact patch.

So....even on the same tire, better performance can be had with a wider wheel, if the tire in question isn't being fully utilized. And many racers find the larger size the way to go regardless for better heat sinking, etc.

Or, in other words...you don't think those barges called Volovs would jump at the chance to run wider rims?? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Leave well enough alone...

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

gran racing
10-08-2004, 08:55 AM
Believe me, the majority of people that are moving to B are not too upset with buying 6" rims.

It would be totally unfair to make people that are not gaining by the move be penalized by the deal. Even if there is no hard proof that 7" wide rims make a significant advantage, it is an advantage none-the-less (or at least a perceived advantage).

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13
'87 Honda Prelude si
NOW ITB!!!

924Guy
10-08-2004, 10:03 AM
I'm moving to ITB. I'm ditching my 15x7's for 15x6's. I'm happy to be going somewhere I might actually get to play with others. I have considered running 6's anyway, even before the reclassification. I'm not worried about slowing down any; even if I do lose a half-second, I'll be in the midst of some competition and the overall racing experience will improve. Just my $0.02.

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

JohnRW
10-08-2004, 10:06 AM
How would allowing wider rims make the racing better ?

Yes, Volvo guys would love to be able to stuff their 225 rubber on a 7" rim, but don't we already know that the Volvos are pretty damn quick already ? VW guys can't get a 225 on their cars and be legal, and does the advantage of a 205 on a 7" rim equal that of a 225 on a 7" rim ? I think not.

Current racers in the B and C are running 6" (or less) wheels. Why put them at a financial...and maybe competitive...disadvantage by allowing 7" rims. Who benefits ? If new cars drop into the class that came stock with 7" wheels (pls cite examples, if there are any), then that can be addressed (going forward) with weights.

Bigger does not always equal better. Ill considered idea.

Next ?

mustanghammer
10-08-2004, 12:22 PM
Does anybody have any hard data (same car, same tire, but 6" vs. 7" wheels, or even wider version of the same tire) that shows just how much (if any) a performance advantage the wider wheels are?

********************

I don't have hard data but I have conducted this "test" a number of times. I ran a C Prepared Solo II Mustang for 13 years. During that time the rules allowed us to move from 10" wide wheel to a 12" wide wheel. During the switch I was running a 25x12x16 Goodyear racing tire on first a 10" wide wheel and then later a 12" wide wheel. Same car, same tire - bigger wheel. Guess which one was faster? The wider wheel.

This year I purchased 8 of the 175/60x13 Kumho Ecsta's that the Tire Rack was blowing out in the spring. First I ran them on Stock 5.5" wheels and then I ran them on 7" wide wheels. I picked up 1.5 seconds using the 7" wheel - same track - same car - same weather.

If you pay any attention to the Solo II CSP/DSP/FSP cars you will see cars running the 225 tires that we run on 7" wheels on 8-9" wide wheels. They do this because it makes them faster.





------------------
Scott Peterson
KC Region
IT7 #17

dyoungre
10-08-2004, 02:20 PM
I don't think I made my point clearly, as I was agreeing with you - that a wider wheel would be better; when I said 'more is worse', I meant that more overhang is worse, and since we are stuffing the biggest tire under the fender that we can get, then the bigger the rim, the better. My point was just that I didn't think hard data would necessarily be found - which y'all proved me wrong. That being said, ITB should NOT change to 7 inch rims. Let the newcomers to the class change, especially since downsizing should reduce the chance of 'creating an overdog situation'.

BTW, Jake, if it improves my friends' credibility....he built a mid engine 911...That's right, a 'P' car ...

------------------
Dave Youngren
NER ITA RX7 #61

Bill Miller
10-08-2004, 03:51 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">If new cars drop into the class that came stock with 7\" wheels (pls cite examples, if there are any), then that can be addressed (going forward) with weights.</font>

This has already happened w/ the New Beetle that was classed in ITC. Smallest OEM wheel was 6.5". I see this as just the first of many cases where new cars are going to be classed in ITB and ITC, and will not be able to run stock wheels. Now, I know someone is going to jump in and say that there are other cars out there that can't run stock wheels because they're too big. IMHO, this is silly. The car should be able to run w/ the wheels that came on the car, from the factory.

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

JohnRW
10-08-2004, 04:45 PM
That was my point, although it may not have been clear enough. New cars entering those classes (B&C) should be allowed to run their stock wheel widths. If a new cars looks like an overdog due to big wheels (and the # of cases will likely be small), then trim it back with weight at initial classification.

Rabbits, Golfs, Escorts, 02's, 142's etc. have no business running on 7" wheels.

Geo
10-08-2004, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by JohnRW:
That was my point, although it may not have been clear enough. New cars entering those classes (B&C) should be allowed to run their stock wheel widths.

Should I be able to run the 8" Fuchs that came on my 944? Should the E46 be able to run the 8" sport package wheels?


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

JohnRW
10-08-2004, 05:23 PM
Neither of those is an ITB or ITC car. Your point ?

Banzai240
10-08-2004, 05:30 PM
First... many of you are forgetting the "base model" clause at the front of the ITCS... Just because your car was available with larger width wheels, doesn't mean that was the "stock" wheel for the car...

Second, the VW New Beetle issue for ITC is being addressed by the ITAC and CRB... The stock, base-model wheel size is 16x6.5"... and I agree, it should be able to run it's base-model wheel size...

And Third... I don't recall anyone in a position to make any decisions recommending that ITB and ITC be allowed 7" wide wheels... If that was the case, we'd have included it in our new wheel diameter rule change... The CRB hasn't indicated that this would change, and the ITAC has discussed this at length, with the majority opinion that we should leave widths alone...


Question to you all: What would YOU recommend for the VW New Beetle wheel issue?

Just curious...

------------------
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 October 08, 2004).]

JohnRW
10-08-2004, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Question to you all: What would YOU recommend for the VW New Beetle wheel issue?

Just curious...



Didn't I see something in FasTrack last month, proposing to restrict the NB to 4" steel wheels ? I think the proposal came from a 'Mr. Jones' and a 'Mr. Bell'.

Eric Parham
10-08-2004, 06:24 PM
My read of the proposed rule from Fastrack would *NOT* permit 13" cars to run 14" wheels, but they would have to jump all the way to 15". I don't think that's what we intended. IMHO, the new rule should simply read "cars originally fitted with wheels less than 15 inches in diameter may run larger diameter wheels up to a maximum of 15 inches".

Bill Miller
10-08-2004, 08:15 PM
JohnRW,

I think George's point was that those cars are ITA/ITS cars, where the max wheel width is 7".

George,

As long as that was the stock size (not an optional size) that came on the model of the car that's classified, they should be allowed to run them.

Darin,

I would have thought that the NB wheel issue would have been addressed at the time of classification. Also, I believe the 16x6.5 is the steel wheel, IIRC, the alloys are 16x7. But, it's probably a moot point as 16x6.5 alloy wheels are probably about as commone as 14x7 wheels.

As far as how to address it, wheel width should be factored into the spec. weight determination of the car. An "adder" if you will.

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

Banzai240
10-08-2004, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Eric Parham:
IMHO, the new rule should simply read "cars originally fitted with wheels less than 15 inches in diameter may run larger diameter wheels up to a maximum of 15 inches".

I've posted several times that this was the intent, and that it would be fixed before the first of the year...



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

Knestis
10-08-2004, 10:32 PM
If the base-model stock size is wider than the general class allowance, the car should be able to run it. We don't, however, have an obligation to make it easy to run alloys just on principal.

On a related front, I was looking at my 2002 Civic 4-door today and thinking about this issue. It has 185-65-15s on (I think) 5.5" wheels - and the tires are already out to the edge of the fenders. The Golf has beaucoupe room under the arches but I suspect that the Honda designers have tried to maximize track width while minimizing frontal area, so I have some expectation that the fender/bodywork rules might well prohibit 7" wide wheels - since it won't be in B...

K

Geo
10-08-2004, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by JohnRW:
Neither of those is an ITB or ITC car. Your point ?

Why should some cars be able to run stock wheels and not others? That's my point.

In the case of the NB it has an unusual size that cannot be accomodated.


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

Geo
10-08-2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
First... many of you are forgetting the "base model" clause at the front of the ITCS...

I seemed to have missed that clause. Can you direct me to it?


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

Banzai240
10-09-2004, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
I seemed to have missed that clause. Can you direct me to it?




Actually, George, you are right, I take it back... I got this mixed up with the Production rules... It's not in the ITCS...

What it does do is reference "the particular model" listed on the spec line, etc...

So, in the case of the 944, I would take this to mean that if they didn't list the model with the 8" wide wheels, you have to race the model with the 7" wide wheels... ( http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif )...

Look, I don't try to pretend to understand everything that has gone on in IT since it's inception, but the bottom line is this...

ITS and ITA cars get up to 7" wide wheels...

ITB and ITC cars get up to 6" wide wheels...

That's the way the class was created (or evolved to to this point, whichever the case may be) and there isn't a huge demand or desire by most to change this... If I were king, I'd have increased ITS/ITA wheels to 8" and ITB/ITC to 7", but that's not what the membership, or the leadership of the SCCA, wants. Heck, I'd have plus sized EVERYONE (tried to get that one, actually... but it was shot down... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )

And, to address Kirk's concern with the Honda potentially NOT being able to fit 7" wheels... There is not rule saying that you HAVE to run the maximum... Every car has it's positives and it's negatives... That's part of the fun of a multi-marque class...

My recommendation for the NB is simple... a spec line allowance to run it's factory, base-model sized 16x6.5" wheels. It's the solution with the least impact on the rest of the class, or IT for that matter... As these kinds of cars come in, they'll have to be handled on a case-by-case basis, I suppose... We'll have to just wait and see how it ultimately turns out...

Anyhow, I doubt you will see wheel width allowances change anytime soon, so what we have is what we have...

It's not really THAT big a deal now, is it?? Seems to have worked up to this point...


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

lateapex911
10-09-2004, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Anyhow, I doubt you will see wheel width allowances change anytime soon, so what we have is what we have...




Good! Common sense rules.

The Beetle deal is a tough one. On one hand, the class runs 6", so go get some 6" rims and have fun, guys... On the other hand, IT was formed as the "low cost alternative, so it would seem stupid to throw away percectly good wheels!


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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 09, 2004).]

Banzai240
10-09-2004, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:

The Beetle deal is a tough one. On one hand, the class runs 6", so go get some 6" rims and have fun, guys... On the other hand, IT was formed as the "low cost alternative, so it would seem stupid to throw away percectly good wheels!


Actually Jake, it's not a matter of "thowing away perfectly good wheels"... They simply don't MAKE a 16x6" wheel... We would be forcing these guys to have custom wheels made, which may not be possible either.

While 7" widths are predominant, there are, a few aftermarket 16x6.5" wheels available...

I found at least three for this car on the Tire Rack website... This one is my personal favorite... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Mille Miglia Daisy
http://www.tirerack.com/images/wheelrack/wheel_images/Mille_Miglia/Daisy.KW.dw.gif


Here are the other choices:

Sport Edition Fox 2 Sport
http://www.tirerack.com/images/wheelrack/wheel_images/Sport_Edition/Fox_2_Sport.IA.dw.gif

Sport Edition Fox 3:
http://www.tirerack.com/images/wheelrack/wheel_images/Sport_Edition/Fox_3.G.dw.gif

Not sure how suitable any of these are for racing a 2700lbs+ car, however...

------------------
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 October 09, 2004).]

Geo
10-09-2004, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Look, I don't try to pretend to understand everything that has gone on in IT since it's inception, but the bottom line is this...

ITS and ITA cars get up to 7" wide wheels...

ITB and ITC cars get up to 6" wide wheels...


Hey, no argument from me.

Personally, as long as appropriate wheels are reasonably available, I see absolute ZERO reason to allow the stock wheels, even if they are wider than the rules allow. Buy new wheels of the proper size.


Originally posted by Banzai240:
My recommendation for the NB is simple... a spec line allowance to run it's factory, base-model sized 16x6.5" wheels. It's the solution with the least impact on the rest of the class, or IT for that matter... As these kinds of cars come in, they'll have to be handled on a case-by-case basis, I suppose...

Once again, I fully agree. The NB is an exception due to the unusual size. Just try to find 16x6 wheels. That's not going to happen. So in this case, a simple spec line note is all that's necessary.

I realize some people are going to cry foul, but come on. We classified the NB rather heavy.

Furthermore, my mention of the 8" wheels for the 944 and the BMW are just stirring the pot (easy to do here). I don't serious care about the 8" wheels. The rules are (and have been) set and appropriate wheels are readily available. No big deal.


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

Bill Miller
10-09-2004, 10:16 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I realize some people are going to cry foul, but come on. We classified the NB rather heavy.</font>

That's great George, justify a deviation from the rules because the car was classed w/ a high spec. weight. And, I'd like you to expand on that statement a bit. Are you saying you classed the NB at a higher weight that it should be at, for ITC? I thought that that's where it fell out of the 'process' [sic]. So, I'm going to have to throw the BS flag on your comment.

Why not do like they did w/ the 2nd Gen RX7 (I think that's the car), and just disallow the 16" wheels? There are other examples where cars aren't allowed to run stock wheels. Why should they be the only ones that get screwed?

Darin,

I believe you were one of the proponents of the 'airport box' rule for wheels and tires. Why not? You can run whatever wheel/tire combo, as long as it fits in the box.

And the arguement that allowing all classes to run 7" wheels will force people to spend more money, is a red herring. They guys that want to win are already spending lots of money. They're the ones that are buying new Hoosiers for every weekend. Oh yeah, and since there's no guarantee of competitiveness, what's the big deal?

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

ITSRX7
10-09-2004, 03:13 PM
Bill,

How about this:

When we originally classed the NB and recommended a weight, we did so at the class limit of 6" wide wheels.

One of the current issues on our plate is wheel widths going forward. It is obvious that some of new class requests are going to have standard wheels that are larger in width than is allowed.

I think it's best to be able to run wheels that are probably on the car for cost reasons, yet that conflicts with the current rules. Some on the ITAC think a spec-line' allowance is appropriate, some don't.

If the CRB allows 6.5" wheels on the NB, then I am sure they will come to us and ask if the weight recommendation stands. It may, it may not. If we think th eweight was a cautious guess, we may let it stand. If we think it was SPOT ON, it may grow some. Until then, it's all academic.

The big deal about allowing all ITB and ITC cars to got to 7"? Why is it obvious to everyone but you? The same size tire on a wider (read: more appropriately sized) rim will perform better, PERIOD. It will EITHER cause everyone to get the better equipment to keep pace OR it will create a larger gap between the haves and the have-nots. NEITHER result is good for IT.


AB

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


[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited October 09, 2004).]

lateapex911
10-09-2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
...........
And the arguement that allowing all classes to run 7" wheels will force people to spend more money, is a red herring. They guys that want to win are already spending lots of money. They're the ones that are buying new Hoosiers for every weekend. Oh yeah, and since there's no guarantee of competitiveness, what's the big deal?




C'mon Bill...THINK about what you're saying! Good ole' Bob is running his ITB car having fun and finishing well, after years of struggling to get his ride competitive againat the best guys. It took time because he just didn't have the money to buy all the good stuff.

But he's arrived. Now, you want him, and all his fellow strugglers, (And there are a LOT) to go out and re-do their entire wheel tire combo????

I ask you this... WHY????

Why NOT is obvious........


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

Bill Miller
10-09-2004, 04:25 PM
Andy,

If you can show me some hard data that the same tire on a wider rim will reduce lap times, I'd say you were right, and it shouldn't be allowed. BTW, how was the open ECU rule good for IT??? Until then, it's a perceived advantage.

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

ITSRX7
10-09-2004, 05:50 PM
Bill,

Enough already. You are just being argumentitive.

A few posts above, someone gave hard evidence - someting wrong with it? Oh, ya, it didn't fit your agenda.


This year I purchased 8 of the 175/60x13 Kumho Ecsta's that the Tire Rack was blowing out in the spring. First I ran them on Stock 5.5" wheels and then I ran them on 7" wide wheels. I picked up 1.5 seconds using the 7" wheel - same track - same car - same weather.
------------------
Scott Peterson
KC Region
IT7 #17

It's common knowledge that if you have a rim that 'fits' the tire you are running it flattens out the contact patch and affects heat, handling, braking etc. Stuffing the biggest possible tire on a rim MAY be faster than a smaller tire if you can get enough heat in it but it certainly isn't faster than the right tire on the right rim.

ECU rule....please. I have stated I would LOVE to put that Genie back in the bottle. I don't know of ANY current ITAC members who thinks its a good thing.

Enough, please. You are killing me slowly.

AB

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

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited October 09, 2004).]

lateapex911
10-09-2004, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Actually Jake, ..... there are, a few aftermarket 16x6.5" wheels available...



OK, I have gone to the shop, laid a few floor tiles and given this some serious thought...

Here's the crux of it:
It would be unfair to the class (ITC) to give the new Beetle a wider rim........right???

And it would be unfair to the owners of the car to have to go out and spend a million dollars to have custom wheels made..... right?

So, to be fair to all, I propose the ITCS line specs the following (and ONLY the following) rim:



Mille Miglia Daisy
http://www.tirerack.com/images/wheelrack/wheel_images/Mille_Miglia/Daisy.KW.dw.gif

I am SURE the rest of ITC would love to see those on a race car..........AND the New Bettles owners don't HAVE to spend megabucks!

Win win for all as I see it!




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

Geo
10-10-2004, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
...I propose the ITCS line specs the following (and ONLY the following) rim:



Mille Miglia Daisy
http://www.tirerack.com/images/wheelrack/wheel_images/Mille_Miglia/Daisy.KW.dw.gif

LOL! Jake, you really keep me laughing here!

Think we can require them to keep the bud vase by claiming it's part of the dash board? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif




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

lateapex911
10-10-2004, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by Geo:

Think we can require them to keep the bud vase by claiming it's part of the dash board? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



Yes, of course!AND....be sure to spec that the wheel centers need to be YELLOW, (as shown)...it's 'friendlier', AND that they run number "meatballs" in matching yellow.....

All you have to do is write it in my friend!

Look at it this way...the IT community might chuckle, but you will win the undying respect of one ...GR Jones!


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

Bill Miller
10-10-2004, 09:18 AM
C'mon Andy, you know very well there's not enough information there to determine if the data are significant. Driver could be just getting used to the tires, heat cycles, more rubber on the track, etc. I'm talking about a controlled experiment, that is designed to identify a real performance difference between a 6" and a 7" rim. BTW, I'm sure a 175/60/13 on a 7" wheel has that 'stretched' euro look.

And I'm not trying to be argumentative. If you want to shout me down, go right ahead. Darin's a big proponent of an alternate brake package as well as the airport box formula (oops, I meant "process" http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif ) for wheels / tires. Or maybe that's for Prod. He bounces back and forth so much, I can't keep track of where he's at! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Seriously, give people the option. If you want to run 7" wheels in ITB/C, and your car didn't come w/ them, it's a 50# weight penalty. Lets all the ITA cars comming down keep there old wheels (and doesn't make them spend more money). It also addresses the issue of new cars comming into ITB/C that have wider than 6" wheels, while not making 'special exceptions'. Or, like I said earlier, just prohibit the 16" wheels.

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

Bill Miller
10-10-2004, 09:19 AM
Oh, and as far as the ECU rule goes, if the entire ITAC is against it, I would think that it would be a top priority to convince the CRB/BoD that it should be changed. They've put the genie back in the bottle before.

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

ITSRX7
10-10-2004, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Seriously, give people the option. If you want to run 7" wheels in ITB/C, and your car didn't come w/ them, it's a 50# weight penalty.

In my best Bill Miller:

Please forward me the data you have that shows a 1" increase in wheel width = a 50lb minimum weight increase. Why would you suggest a rule cahnge that you can't back up with hard data? Aren't you afraid you will affect the competitive balance currently in the class?

AB

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

erlrich
10-10-2004, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Oh, and as far as the ECU rule goes, if the entire ITAC is against it

Ok, that one got my attention too... Just for the record, what would the majority of the ITAC members do with the ECU rule, assuming something could be done?

Earl

[This message has been edited by erlrich (edited October 10, 2004).]

Bill Miller
10-10-2004, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
In my best Bill Miller:

Please forward me the data you have that shows a 1" increase in wheel width = a 50lb minimum weight increase. Why would you suggest a rule cahnge that you can't back up with hard data? Aren't you afraid you will affect the competitive balance currently in the class?

AB




Andy,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you and the rest of the ITAC arbitrarily (sp?) assign the weight values to the 'adders' you use in the car classification/specification 'process' [sic]? Isn't that why some of you are against publishing the formula, because you don't want people saying "Hey, how can xxx and yyy both be worth zzz pounds?"

And weren't you (or was it Darin or George?) the one that said that if you got the weight w/in 50-100 lbs, that was close enough? Talk about being argumentative. And please, making comments about people not worrying about upsetting the competitive balance of the class is disingenuous, in light of the way cars like the gen. 1 RX7, AW11 MR2, etc. have been further marginalized by pushing more ITS cars into ITA. Or, do you figure that since those cars aren't competitive currently, what does it matter if they finish 20th or 15th?

Also, I don't recall seeing this kind of concern about opening up the shock rule to allow threaded-body shocks. You've essentially made everyone go out and update their shock package, if they want to remain competitive. Tell me that's not going to widen the gap between the haves and have-nots.

Note: Please don't take this as me not supporting the new shock rule, because I do support it. But please don't pick and choose which advancements that you don't want to support, and claim that it will cost people more money.


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

ITSRX7
10-10-2004, 10:38 AM
Earl,

I can't speak for the majority but *I* would like to return the rule to '100% fatory hardware'. For those cars that can flash in new parameters, that is a factor considered when minimum weight is set (or reset).

I know most of the ITAC isn't happy with the outcome of the 'open internals' rule but what they would do is unknown to me.

AB

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

Bill Miller
10-10-2004, 10:42 AM
It will EITHER cause everyone to get the better equipment to keep pace OR it will create a larger gap between the haves and the have-nots. NEITHER result is good for IT.


Your words Andy, please tell me how they aren't equally as applicable to the new shock rule.

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

ITSRX7
10-10-2004, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Andy,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you and the rest of the ITAC arbitrarily (sp?) assign the weight values to the 'adders' you use in the car classification/specification 'process' [sic]? Isn't that why some of you are against publishing the formula, because you don't want people saying "Hey, how can xxx and yyy both be worth zzz pounds?"

And weren't you (or was it Darin or George?) the one that said that if you got the weight w/in 50-100 lbs, that was close enough? Talk about being argumentative. And please, making comments about people not worrying about upsetting the competitive balance of the class is disingenuous, in light of the way cars like the gen. 1 RX7, AW11 MR2, etc. have been further marginalized by pushing more ITS cars into ITA. Or, do you figure that since those cars aren't competitive currently, what does it matter if they finish 20th or 15th?

Bill, my sarcasm was obviously lost on you. My post was meant to spoof EXACTLY how YOU would have responded to your own post. It's how you operate.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Also, I don't recall seeing this kind of concern about opening up the shock rule to allow threaded-body shocks. You've essentially made everyone go out and update their shock package, if they want to remain competitive. Tell me that's not going to widen the gap between the haves and have-nots.</font>

WHAT??? Why would you support a rule that you think is a bad idea? We absolutly HAVE NOT required everyone to update shock packages to stay competitive. The reversal of this rule is due to the reversal of the economics of the parts. Full coil-overs are not 'unobtainium' anymore. Frankly, we all know there is more cost in buying the coil overs, grinding off the threads and installing a sleeve. THIS is what I mean about being argumentative - you take a side JUST TO argue - and yet you state you believe in the rule. I can't figure you out.

Enough, please.

AB



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

ITSRX7
10-10-2004, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Your words Andy, please tell me how they aren't equally as applicable to the new shock rule.



Beacause the shocks are the same in either configuration. It costs more to take a full coil-over and make it legal under the current rule than it does to just buy the coil-over under the new rule.

AB

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

Bill Miller
10-10-2004, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Beacause the shocks are the same in either configuration. It costs more to take a full coil-over and make it legal under the current rule than it does to just buy the coil-over under the new rule.

AB




Then we'll just have to agree to disagree Andy. Let me ask you this, just how many people do you know that went to the trouble (and expense) to have a set of coilovers machined, just to make them legal in IT? Yes, we all know that it's been done, and that they're out there.

My contention is, that there are not that many cases out there, and that the cost was still somewhat of a barrier, and that it had not gotten to the point where everyone had to go out and spend the money to have it done. Now, w/ the essentially 'open' shock rule, you've just lowered the barrier, and facilitated the increased penetration into the IT grid.

But tell you what, let's wait and see how many folks show up at the early races next year w/ new coilover shocks on their cars. I really can't believe that you think the new shock rule hasn't raised the ante in IT.


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

Banzai240
10-10-2004, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I really can't believe that you think the new shock rule hasn't raised the ante in IT.

Hmmm.... exactly the same shock rule change that was implemented in Production... Done in complete coordination with the ITAC, I might add...

This is simply a dillusional statement, Mr. Miller... The support for this rule change was overwhelming and makes total fiscal sense...

Just because YOU aren't aware of the "grinding the threads" off thing being done in large numbers, doesn't mean it doesn't exist...

You'd be suprised by how much you really don't know about the community that you USED to race with...



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

lateapex911
10-10-2004, 01:58 PM
You guys are confusing me. Andy....stop arguing like Bill...it's scary and confusing. LOL

Bill forget about the 7" in B and C idea...so many reasons NOT to, not many TO do it. And adding a weight option? Again...why? Isn't the rulebook daunting enough already to a guy thinking about getting involved?

Options cost money...you either have to test both, or have great predictive software, or know someone who has done the testing that you trust if you want to be competitive.

Prod has plenty of options and intracacies. We don't need to follow that example.

And man, don't I wish we could reverse time! Yes, the ECU rule change WAS a monumentally bad decision, but the secenario wasn't great either. God knows we have a hard enough time policing the easy stuff already. But reverse the rule?? Even I have a hard time with that.

If you were to do that, it would really screw guys who spent a BOATload of money, and even more time. The ONLY way would be to announce it with plenty of lead time, but even that would suck.

It's a great example why rule changes need to be really well thought out, and made with extreme care.

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

apr67
10-10-2004, 03:25 PM
I see no way that full coilovers are a competitve advantage at all vs the old rules.

This just made it a bit cheaper for those who already have good shocks and struts, like the ground control stuff.

The old rule was so dumb. You can have a coil over, but you have to go through hoops to make it not a coil over.

Alan

Banzai240
10-10-2004, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
And man, don't I wish we could reverse time! Yes, the ECU rule change WAS a monumentally bad decision, but the secenario wasn't great either. God knows we have a hard enough time policing the easy stuff already. But reverse the rule?? Even I have a hard time with that.


Interestingly enough, there was discussion about opening up the ECU rules for Showroom Stock, due to the policing issue... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif

I'm NOT in favor of allowing only STOCK ECUs, but, were I to totally rewrite this rule, I'd try (if it's even possible to get the wording right...) to make it such that one was required to use the stock mainboard, but allow EPROM mods, or even Daughterboards that add additional EPROMS, like the Wolf units do. I might even add an intent statement that would make the use of a stand-alone MOTEC unit illegal.

BUT, just try to word that to cover all situations... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif

Good or Bad, the ECU rule is the same as the Touring version of the rule, and it's what we have now.

My personal belief is that IF we can get the classes aligned a little better, given the new technology and introduction of newere cars, this won't be nearly the issue that it is today. But then, I've always been naively optimistic... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



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

Geo
10-10-2004, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And weren't you (or was it Darin or George?) the one that said that if you got the weight w/in 50-100 lbs, that was close enough?

No. You got this wrong.

I don't think anyone said "close enough."

A lot of guesses need to be made about what the impact of a variety of variables will be. My personal feeling is that getting any finer than 65-75lbs (or thereabouts) is about the limit of resolution of our guesses.

So far most people have been pretty satisfied with our guesses. Let's give them some time and we see how we did. If we have to adjust them using the new PCA rule, we will.


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

Geo
10-10-2004, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
I'm NOT in favor of allowing only STOCK ECUs, but, were I to totally rewrite this rule, I'd try (if it's even possible to get the wording right...) to make it such that one was required to use the stock mainboard, but allow EPROM mods, or even Daughterboards that add additional EPROMS, like the Wolf units do.

This is very close to what I'd like to see. Something that requires the stock board to be installed and function in the control of the EFI. But I have zero problem with only allowing the chip to be changed and allowing the installation of daughterboards to facilitate this. That is what I think would be in the spirit of IT.

And, as for the investment into MOTECs and what happens if we slam that genie int the bottle, it's not like MOTECs have a low value outside IT. I think they are wrong for IT and bad for IT.



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

Bill Miller
10-10-2004, 07:16 PM
Just because YOU aren't aware of the "grinding the threads" off thing being done in large numbers, doesn't mean it doesn't exist...

You'd be suprised by how much you really don't know about the community that you USED to race with...



Darin,

I suppose you have the same evidence to support that claim as you did to support your claims of VW power output.

And, I see you continue to take shots at me because I don't race an IT car any more. Ok, here's a proposition for you. I'll stay out of rules/classification related discussions here if you stay out of the same on the Prod site. Deal?

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

JohnRW
10-10-2004, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

And, I see you continue to take shots at me because I don't race an IT car any more.


Unfortunately, this board has taken on the look of the Prod boards. Internet gas-bags rule.

Bill, are you racing anything, or are you only here for the arguments ? One race or so a year over a couple of years doesn't meet my standards of qualifications for input to Club Racing rules but, of course, I can choose what and who to listen to. Hopefully, others exercise those choices, too.

Harsh ? Yup (and I'm much worse in-person). Dues only get you a magazine. If you're contributing to the 'process' (that would be defined as the working business and working activities of the Club), then you have standing. If you're not, then your just yapping at the periphery.

Is there an internet equivalent of "rolled-up newspaper" ?

JohnRW
10-10-2004, 09:13 PM
Urp.

[This message has been edited by JohnRW (edited October 10, 2004).]

Banzai240
10-10-2004, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I suppose you have the same evidence to support that claim as you did to support your claims of VW power output.

No Bill, this time, the ITAC actually does have letters... I also have recall of a 240SX driver on THIS board, asking whether or not the rule would be passed and in place by the ARRC so he could decide whether he'd have to cut the threads off of his new shocks to be legal...

It's simply been a common practice. The rule was outdated, and it's now fixed.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And, I see you continue to take shots at me because I don't race an IT car any more.</font>

To my recollection, this is the FIRST time I've ever even mentioned this.

As for the deal you offer... no thanks... the Prod community can't seem to get it right to this point, so I think they could use a few forward thinkers around to help them get it straightened out...



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

Banzai240
10-10-2004, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by JohnRW:
Unfortunately, this board has taken on the look of the Prod boards. Internet gas-bags rule.

John and others,

To this, I have to appologize for any part I may have had in creating this situation.

I assure you that my interests are solely on getting the most out of this medium inorder to better serve the IT community...

The fact that I let myself get wrapped up in this nit-picky debates stems mostly from my desire to try to set the record straight and to give the side of the story that I know...

I'm human also, however, and I'm not about to let some windbag trash me in "public" without defending myself or at least trying to set the record straight.

Hopefully, those of you out there listening have the patience to weed through the BS and see the true intentions behind the ITAC and those people involved with trying to make this class grow and continue being successful.

That's all we're trying to do...



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

Bill Miller
10-10-2004, 10:19 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">No Bill, this time, the ITAC actually does have letters</font>

So Darin, you've finally admitted that you never had the proof/evidence that you claimed to have had.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">To my recollection, this is the FIRST time I've ever even mentioned this.</font>

So I guess you've forgotten about when you said I 'abandoned' IT, because I sold my IT car and bought a Prod car. :roll:

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

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited October 10, 2004).]

Banzai240
10-10-2004, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
So I guess you've forgotten about when you said I 'abandoned' IT, because I sold my IT car and bought a Prod car. :roll:


Yes, I have forgotten saying that... If I did, I'd be interested in the full context of it...

NO matter, this is a waste of everyone elses time. You can take this up with me in private, if you have the sack...

OH, and I admitted a LONG time ago that I couldn't find the e-mails with the numbers I was quoting for the VW power. I even suggested that the numbers you were quoting were likely closer to REAL... (didn't you say around 99hp or so?) What exactly are you trying to prove? Can you REALLY look over the past year, and all that has happened in IT, and ALL the communication, questions, answers, etc., that I and the ITAC have taken part in and suggest that we aren't being straight-forward with the IT community? Is THAT what you are trying to show???

OR, are you just trying to show that YOU'VE been screwed over in some way???

Make your accusation or leave me alone, because this is simply REDICULOUS and I simply don't wish to be associated with this kind of BS any further. I'm not willing to let you ruin this medium for the rest of IT, so say your peace and get over it.



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

planet6racing
10-11-2004, 09:05 AM
You know, I think it was me who first said that. And it's as true today as it was then. It'll be nice when we get the new board system, though, as we should be able to "ignore" posts from certain users.

And, as far as the ECU thing, can someone provide hard evidence that, by opening the ECU rules, it upset the balance of IT? In my region, the front runners are still the front runners and nothing else has changed (and, no, they weren't cheating before the rule change).

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

tderonne
10-11-2004, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Should I be able to run the 8" Fuchs that came on my 944? Should the E46 be able to run the 8" sport package wheels?


I've been told the "S" is the only car that got the 8" wheels? Is that wrong? It's just the rears anyway?

Same question on the BMW, was that an option on the car that is classed?

The only case I'm familiar with is the ITB Mustang. '91 to '93 models had 15x7's at all four corners.

Someone once suggested that any AFTERMARKET wheel be limited to the class maximum. OEM being legal at whatever width came on the car. Seemed like a reasonable comprimise to me, run heavy 15x7 OEM wheels, or lighter 15x6, about a wash?

Geo
10-11-2004, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by tderonne:
I've been told the "S" is the only car that got the 8" wheels? Is that wrong? It's just the rears anyway?

The Fuchs option on the 944 included 8" rears. I'm not even sure the S got 8" rears.


Originally posted by tderonne:
Same question on the BMW, was that an option on the car that is classed?

That is correct, it was part of the optional sport package.


Originally posted by tderonne:
The only case I'm familiar with is the ITB Mustang. '91 to '93 models had 15x7's at all four corners.

Am I missing something? I don't see a 91-93 Mustang in ITB.


Originally posted by tderonne:
[B]Someone once suggested that any AFTERMARKET wheel be limited to the class maximum. OEM being legal at whatever width came on the car. Seemed like a reasonable comprimise to me, run heavy 15x7 OEM wheels, or lighter 15x6, about a wash?


With the exception of impossible to find legal wheels (e.g. NB) I'd say class limit is class limit. I was truly just stirring the pot in the post you quoted.


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

lateapex911
10-11-2004, 07:51 PM
IF I were offered a trade off between a heqavy wide stock wheel and a light wheel an inch narrower, I would take the wide one everytime, (OK, maybe not in the ITD world...).

When you think of the weight difference as a percentage of total rotational weight, I think its fairly minimal. I can hear the engineers howling now!

My thinking is that in the rare instances where the ITAC thinks that there aren't any reasonable sources for wheels that meet IT specs, that the car be allowed to run on it's stock size with a weight penalty. In the NBs case, this should be a slam dunk.

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

joeg
10-12-2004, 07:18 AM
Golly...let's get back to battery weight research...