14"-15" wheel size rule [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Andy Bettencourt

01-27-2005, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by ITANorm:
I still contend that as worded it allows cars that had 13" or 14" stock to use any of the 3. "Up to" means equal to or less than. The only reason I really keep pushing this is that it's gonn'a happen, and using the GCR I'm not gonn'a be able to enforce the "intent" of the CRB or the ITAC.

<edit: fat fingers </edit>

Well, we can tell you for certain, that it was not the intent. KNOWING THAT, If it does start to happen, there will be a clarification AND you will have wasted your money.

We will be looking into more specific wording that takes up a minimual amount of GCR text.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITA project SM 1.6
Spec Miata 1.8
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

joeg

01-27-2005, 10:02 AM

I already have a 2005 GCR...it's in there.

One thing I didn't care for in the new GCR is that they didn't BOLD and blackbar line changes. They just italicized new language.

Cheers.

Jake

01-27-2005, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
if it does start to happen, there will be a clarification

Andy, not everyone reads this message board, and it is very easy to read the rule that way (after all that is what it says). I would suggest correcting the wording very quickly. To be honest, if I wasn't on this board, I probably would have already bought a set of 13x7's.

Andy Bettencourt

01-27-2005, 04:51 PM

While the wording has not been approved, expect someting additional like:

"Cars may not fit smaller diameter wheels than specified on their spec line."

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITA project SM 1.6
Spec Miata 1.8
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Matt Rowe

01-27-2005, 04:54 PM

Jake,

I must be missing something. Can you tell me what situation you think is going to happen and what the advantage/disadvantage would be? Are you referring to weight reduction by people downsizing their wheels or is it something else?

------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

Andy Bettencourt

01-27-2005, 05:32 PM

Cheap gear change...

Geo

01-27-2005, 07:15 PM

The purpose for the rule change was to deal with the relative lack of availability in certain smaller wheel sizes.

The intent was to make it cheaper for folks to get appropriate wheels.

While I think performance-wise it's pretty much a wash, on the off chance someone were to find an advantage in a smaller, less easy to find wheel size it would totally defeat the purpose of the rule.

So, as Andy said, if you think you can get it by tech and/or protest, fine. Just expect smaller diameter wheels to be worthless to you later (or perhaps sooner than later).

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

lateapex911

01-27-2005, 09:05 PM

Devils advocate role:

IF the CRB, the ITAC, et al wants to try to help IT remain an reasonable venture from a cost standpoint, which is the main intent of the rule, doesn't it follow that allowing smaller diameter wheels would do exactly that?

To quote Bettencourt, "Cheap gear change..."

That said, I would object to that line of thinking due to the possibility it could result in a gear change that, up to now, was impossible. (Assuming the ITAC, and/or the CRB knew of the unavailability of gears when they classed the car originally)

Am I right? Is there more?

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

Geo

01-27-2005, 10:05 PM

Jake, the gearing is not what concerns me nor I think the ITAC as a whole. It's more the matter of the fact that some smaller wheel sizes are nearly unavailable and require either expensive racing wheels or expensive custom wheels.

The idea was to cut wheel costs.

Also, wheels don't change the rolling diameter, tires do. If rolling diameter is an issue one should look at tire selection.

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

Jake

01-27-2005, 10:06 PM

I honestly think that wheel diameter should be open because I don't think there is any competitive advantage to allowing smaller diameter wheels (at the same width)

However, the way the rule is written, it only allows people with 14" wheels to go down in diameter, which would be unfair because it doesn't give others that option.

Greg Amy

01-27-2005, 10:58 PM

Another unintended consequence: cars with larger wheels can run deeper spoilers (e.g., a full 1 inch lower spoiler when going from 13" to 15" diameter wheels...)

Guys, there's always unintended consequences. You'll drive yourself batty trying to avoid them...

Andy Bettencourt

01-27-2005, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Jake:
I honestly think that wheel diameter should be open because I don't think there is any competitive advantage to allowing smaller diameter wheels (at the same width)

However, the way the rule is written, it only allows people with 14" wheels to go down in diameter, which would be unfair because it doesn't give others that option.

Then I have a few comments...

1. Why would you "already have 13 x 7's" if you think there is no performance advantage?

2. Don't worry about the perecived inequity of the rule. It will be clarified to specifically dis-allow going down in size.

And to Gulick's question...like George said, the idea was to cut costs by increasing available choices. Not require people to have 30 different permutations of wheels, tires, etc for every track.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITA project SM 1.6
Spec Miata 1.8
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Bill Miller

01-28-2005, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by GregAmy:
Another unintended consequence: cars with larger wheels can run deeper spoilers (e.g., a full 1 inch lower spoiler when going from 13" to 15" diameter wheels...)

Guys, there's always unintended consequences. You'll drive yourself batty trying to avoid them...

Greg,

Maybe it's too early, but I don't see how this is going to be any kind of an advantage. If you want to run a 1" deep spoiler, won't you also have to run 1" higher ride height?

2. Don't worry about the perecived inequity of the rule. It will be clarified to specifically dis-allow going down in size.

Andy, why is this such an issue? Why not let everyone run whatever wheel size they want, up to 15", or the stated wheel size on the spec line, if it's greater than 15"? Some cars won't be able to go to a smaller wheel, as it won't clear the brakes. Seems like something minor to be spending a lot of energy on.

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

Bill Miller

01-28-2005, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Greg,

Maybe it's too early, but I don't see how this is going to be any kind of an advantage. If you want to run a 1" deep spoiler, won't you also have to run 1" higher ride height?

2. Don't worry about the perecived inequity of the rule. It will be clarified to specifically dis-allow going down in size.

Andy, why is this such an issue? Why not let everyone run whatever wheel size they want, up to 15\", or the stated wheel size on the spec line, if it's greater than 15\"? Some cars won't be able to go to a smaller wheel, as it won't clear the brakes. Seems like something minor to be spending a lot of energy on.

/edit/comment for George (and Andy, I guess)

You guys say you opened up the wheel rule to deal w/ expensive, hard to find wheels. Yet Andy says that allowing someone w/ 15's to use those same wheels is a "cheap gear change". If that's the case, and the wheels are 'cheap'[sic], why was the rule changed?

I also don't think it's all that 'cheap', even if the wheels aren't that expensive, and are available. Figure you need at least 6, if not 8 wheels, plus tires. You're looking at ~$800 - $1200 worth of tires, and another $400 (IF you can find some cheap wheels, see above comment about cost and availability) to God knows what ($1500? $2000) on the other end. And, that's only going to give you one different ratio. You can probably get another tranny w/ a different R&P for about the same money (maybe less).

R&P ratios are free, why worry about the tire/wheel issue? It's kind of like the old shock rule, you could get to coil overs, you just had to spend more money (if you wanted fancy shocks).

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

Geo

01-28-2005, 08:32 AM

Bill, I don't think effective gearing change is the real issue. The issue is that allowing people to go down in size defeats the purpose of the rule. Period. Wheels don't dictate rolling diameter anyway. Tires do. You can already use different tire sizes.

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

joeg

01-28-2005, 08:48 AM

I have no clue what the fuss is all about.

I would hope the rule was changed because of not only perceived wheel shortages, but also the tire manufacturers not venturing into 13 and 14 inch size expansion in DOT race rubber.

For example, is that new F1 style Kumho available in a 13 or 14 yet? will it ever be?

As for going "down size", I haven't ever seen a 12" or 10" DOT race tire on the Hoosier truck (or any other suppliers catalog).

Have you?

The bottom line is that the marketplace will resolve this, so why not let anyone run sizes whatever up or down they want in the "real" 13 to 15 range. They soon will probably not have much of a choice.

Jake

01-28-2005, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Why would you "already have 13 x 7's" if you think there is no performance advantage?

Ok - I should have clarified - no perf adv other than the gear change which is already legal. If someone would make a 205/45ZR14, It wouldn't really make any difference. (Hoosier, are you listening?)

Jake

01-28-2005, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
...not to require people to have 30 different permutations of wheels, tires, etc for every track.

How is this any different than whay we have today? I can have different gear ratios for each track. Wheel diameter, just makes it a cheaper way for some people.

Greg Amy

01-28-2005, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
If you want to run a 1" deep spoiler, won't you also have to run 1" higher ride height?

Nope. The bottom edge of the spoiler is controlled by the rule that states (I paraphrase) that nothing shall be lower than the lowest part of the wheel rims.

If someone goes from 205/60-13 tires to 205/50-15 tires, their tire diameter does not change but the lowest part of the wheel is now 1" lower than before. By the rules, that person can now extend their spoiler 1" lower than before without changing ride height...(that effect is 1/2" if going from 205/55-14 to 205/50-15.) It's solely because of this that we are seriously considering selling a perfectly good set of 14" Borbet wheels in order to buy 15 inchers, which will increase our costs both in wheels and in tires...

Like I said, guys: unintended consequences. The original intention may have been to reduce costs, but (in my case) a result is that it will increase costs... - GA

(P.S. - I like and agree with the rule, please don't allow me to mis-imply, but I do think you should just let it ride as-is and congrat yourself for a job well done. - GA)

[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited January 28, 2005).]

ITSRX7

01-28-2005, 01:01 PM

As Geo stated, the intent of teh rule change was to give racers more options in a shrinking availabilty landscape WITHOUT adding the NEED to upgrade due to a performance increase.

While going down a size may produce a cheap gear ratio change, it is something that would be done through the addition of wheels that are limited in thier availablity - exactly what we are wanted to get away from. Besides, there is already a rule that alows for this modification.

And if only SOME cars can go down due to brake sizes, then it isn't fair for all and isn't my idea of the right reason to make a rule change.

Bill, I never said a reason we changed the rule was to allow for cheap gear changes (we never intended a downward move). I simply responded to a question that asked why anyone would want to go down a size - even though the wheels costs could make it a wash.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
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 January 28, 2005).]

Bill Miller

01-28-2005, 05:39 PM

See Greg, I told you it was early!

Andy,

I never meant to imply that you made the change to the wheel rule to allow for any kind of gearing change. I was simply pointing out that it was probably far from 'cheap', and that if it were cheap (i.e. wheels were cheap and available), then there was probably no need for the change. Also, I fail to see how there would be a 'need' to upgrade.

As far as it not being fair for some, because they might not be able to go down because of brake fitment problems, then the whole rule isn't fair. You've given the folks w/ 13's the option of going to 14's and 15's. That gives them the ability to play w/ gearing more so than those folks w/ 14's or 15's. BTW, I think the gearing thing is a red herring anyway, cheaper to buy multiple trannies w/ different R&P ratios.

Regarding the "there's already a rule in place" comment, I go back to my earlier statement about shocks. If you're going to use the arguement that there was already a rule in place to allow for something, then the shock rule should have never been changed.

George,

How does allowing people to go down in size 'defeat the purpose of the rule'? I thought the purpose of the rule was to give people a lower cost alternative. Are you going to require the people that can currently run 13's to move up?

Point is, this is being blown way out of proportion. Spend time working on important issues, rathter than something that will sort itself out.

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

Geo

01-28-2005, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Point is, this is being blown way out of proportion. Spend time working on important issues, rathter than something that will sort itself out.

I think in the end this will take very little time. Issue a clarification that you can't go down through Fastrack and it's done.

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

Daryl DeArman

01-29-2005, 12:43 AM

If your tires are already 45 series 15's, you can't go with much of a shorter tire.
Going to a 13" would allow you a shorter tire/wheel combo. Wheels do play a factor in overall tire diameter.

Given the same shape and materials the smaller diameter wheel/tire not only weighs less, but has a lower momment of inertia. It will accelerate faster and decelerate faster. The smaller diameter wheel will also allow some cars to run at minimum ride height without screwy alignment curves.

If wheel diameter were open, I'd run the smallest diameter wheel that I could still gear for. Provided it still allowed adequate brake clearance/cooling.

And they still do make 10" racing tires. I was at the test/tune day today for the VARA race this weekend. Saw a couple of Mini's with fresh looking rubber. Yokohama's I believe, maybe AVON's?

joeg

01-29-2005, 10:27 AM

And they still do make 10" racing tires. I was at the test/tune day today for the VARA race this weekend. Saw a couple of Mini's with fresh looking rubber. Yokohama's I
believe, maybe AVON's?[/B][/QUOTE]

Good D.O.T race tires in 10?

Don't think so (racing tires for sure; IT tires, doubt it)

Bill Miller

01-29-2005, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Geo:
I think in the end this will take very little time. Issue a clarification that you can't go down through Fastrack and it's done.

George,

Why not put it out for member input and see what the racing community would like to see?

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

gran racing

01-29-2005, 02:14 PM

Spend time working on important issues, rathter than something that will sort itself out.

Not trying to be a jerk but I thought you just wanted to be done with this one?

It all comes down to the intention of the rule. From my understanding it to allow people using 13" and 14" wheels the flexibilty to utilize other size rims (an increase in size) that are in greater supply. Yeah I know, they need to amend the wording to get rid of the loop holes for it to meet this intent.

I have mixed emotions about fully opening the wheel diameter rule as a person using 13" rims.

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

Joe Craven

01-29-2005, 03:33 PM

My car has 13" and I now have 2 sets of 14" and looking to pick up a set of 15" wheels. It gives me more selection of tires and I love the flexibility. All IT cars should have the option of choosing the size they want to run.

There are cheap options for 13, 14, 15 inch wheels. Diamond and other will make the wheels to the width and offset and bolt pattern one wants at an economical cost.

Bill Miller

01-29-2005, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by gran racing:
Not trying to be a jerk but I thought you just wanted to be done with this one?

Dave,

Was that directed at me? If so, I'm not sure I get what you're trying to say. I wanted to be done w/ what, the wheel issue?

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

Banzai240

01-31-2005, 11:29 AM

Guys... last time I checked... "up to" did not mean "down to"...

Your spec line allowance is STILL the place at which this rule BEGINS it's effect... The "orgin", or zero point, if you will...

If someone tells you you could get up to 5 years in prison for a crime, that doesn't mean you'll get out of jail LAST week if you commit it...

If you could spend up to $100.00 on an item, that doesn't mean that someone is going to give you $50.00 to take that item...

If you start at your spec line allowanace, say 14, does the term "up to 15" not mean simply the set [14,15]??

If you start at 15"... HOW can you possibly claim that fitting a 13" wheel is "up to 15"???

Simply stated... UP does NOT mean DOWN...

You guys are out of your minds if you need more clarrification to understand this simple and concise rule...

I imagine we'll go ahead and do it, however... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 31, 2005).]

ITANorm

01-31-2005, 12:24 PM

Darin -

I asked the specific question of the CRB Saturday - and got a non-answer. I understand the intent, but "up to" means "less than or equal to" - period. By that logic, we'd all have to run the largest everything allowed in the GCR.

Banzai240

01-31-2005, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by ITANorm:
Darin -

I asked the specific question of the CRB Saturday - and got a non-answer. I understand the intent, but "up to" means "less than or equal to" - period. By that logic, we'd all have to run the largest everything allowed in the GCR.

I don't disagree... BUT less than or equal to WHAT, and from WHAT starting point...???

If you are starting with a 13" wheel, and are allowed to fit "up to" a 15" wheel... there is still no allowance to go to a 12" wheel... it's 13" UP TO 15", not ZERO up to 15"...

I knew I've stayed away from this board for a reason... what's the point??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

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

Greg Amy

01-31-2005, 02:31 PM

Sorry, Darin my boy, I'm with Normie: your logic is flawed within commonly-accepted language, clouded by your preconceptions of what you intended to mean when you wrote that. Plain and simple, the IT regs, as they are published today, allows any wheel diameter to a maximum of 15" diameter.

Using your logic, and comparing this length measurement to time, the minimum amount of jail time someone can serve is zero years, and in your example the maximum is 5 years. If I'm sentenced to "up to 5 years" in jail that means I get zero to five. In IT, if I can run "up to 15 inch" diameter wheels that means I can use anything from zero to 15.

Comparing this length measurement to your currency example, the minimum amount of money I could spend is zero, the maximum $100. Just as that item could cost me "up to $100" - which means within a range of $0 to $100 - I can use "up to 15 inch" diameter wheels - which means within a range of zero to 15 inches.

Your judgement is clouded by the base premise that there's a starting point. There isn't. No where in the rules does it now state that the listing on the car's line has any bearing on the allowable wheel diameter. In fact, as the rules read now that listed wheel diameter value is pointless and takes up needless space and ink in the book. It is only YOU (collective "you") that have a base preconception about what the rule *should* be that think of that as a baseline, but only if you read the rules as they are written, not as you preconceive them to be can you see why it is fully legal for someone to run any wheel size they wish, as long as the don't go any larger in diameter than 15 inches and no wider than 6" or 7", depending on class.

Sorry, man, but that's just the way it is. And for you to insult the intelligence of the folks on this board for calling you on it ("You guys are out of your minds if you need more clarrification...") is unproductive and does nothing for your brownie point count...

If you intent it to be otherwise, ya better get on the stick and get a correction printed pronto, 'cause once this goes through an appeal (if anyone even bothers to protest it) the horse is way outside the barn... GA

Joe Harlan

01-31-2005, 02:56 PM

Hahaha....Darin, You may as well just figure that there are some guys that will bitch that it costs money and then stretch every comma into a thousand dollar upgrade..

I would take "up to" to mean what ever the factory wheel size was could be upgraded "up to" the allowed wheel size. I would also say that if a car never came with the down to size then it is a stretch to think you could do it.

Banzai240

01-31-2005, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by GregAmy:
Using your logic, and comparing this length measurement to time, the minimum amount of jail time someone can serve is zero years, and in your example the maximum is 5 years. If I'm sentenced to "up to 5 years" in jail that means I get zero to five. In IT, if I can run "up to 15 inch" diameter wheels that means I can use anything from zero to 15.

BS... In the example, we started with ZERO to 5 years of jail time... In the IT example, we are starting with 13" or 14" wheels... It's your presumption that get to start with ZERO diameter that is flawed... We start with what is specified...

Comparing this length measurement to your currency example, the minimum amount of money I could spend is zero, the maximum $100. Just as that item could cost me "up to $100" - which means within a range of $0 to $100 - I can use "up to 15 inch" diameter wheels - which means within a range of zero to 15 inches.

BS again... see above...

Your judgement is clouded by the base premise that there's a starting point. There isn't.

I'll make a note of that.... "Note to self: Spec line is no longer valid, according the IT.com as the numbers on the spec lines resembling 13's and 14's now are really ZEROs..."

[list]You figure it out...
[list]

My perception is just fine... no clouding here... I definately don't agree with you, but that doesn't mean I'm not seeing things as clearly as ever...

But do as you will...

And for you to insult the intelligence of the folks on this board for calling you on it (\"You guys are out of your minds if you need more clarrification...\") is unproductive and does nothing for your brownie point count...

"unproductive"... Yah, that about describes this...

As for earning "brownie points".... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

(PS: OK, so I responded one more time... so much for good intentions... )

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 31, 2005).]

Banzai240

01-31-2005, 05:38 PM

I just sent an e-mail to the rest of the ITAC, Kurt Weiss, and Bob Dowie (our CRB Liason) suggesting the following wording be added to this rule (Credit Andy with the wording...):

\"Cars may not fit smaller diameter wheels than specified on their spec line.\"

I assume that would make it clear enough for everyone???

Being our track record with getting changes/corrections done is what it is, I wouldn't be planning on going down in diameter anytime soon... lest you fall victim to "intent clarrification"...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 31, 2005).]

ITANorm

01-31-2005, 05:41 PM

Would it be too much to ask to just state the rule "cars originally fitted with 13" or 14" wheels MAY install 15" wheels" (or "larger than stock, up to 15" maximum", or whatever)? It would be a simple end to all this discussion.

It will also solve my dilemma as a Steward when (not if) I get an RFA on this - and save you from having to just do it anyway when you get an edict from the CoA directing you to clarify it.

Also, realistically, I never thought we could put skateboard wheels on the cars. The given dataset refers to 13" - 15".

<edit> Simultaneous posts. Your solution will work, too, if you intended for 13" cars to be able to fit 14"'s also. </edit>

[This message has been edited by ITANorm (edited January 31, 2005).]

Greg Amy

01-31-2005, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240:
In the example, we started with ZERO to 5 years of jail time... In the IT example, we are starting with 13" or 14" wheels...

That's your assumption, and the fault in your logic (and the reason this got screwed up in the first place). Show me in the rules where it dictates a minimum wheel diameter. There is nothing in the rules that states there's a minimum wheel diameter. You assume there is, but there isn't.

Face it: you boys screwed the pooch on the wording of this one. The whole ITCS 17.1.9.D.7.a.1 paragraph, p ITCS 13 is a bastardized hacked-up rule that makes absolutely no sense. By its wording it's unclear and open to misinterpretation and confusion. At a minimum you should have written something like "may increase wheel diameter to a maximum of 15 inches" but instead used vague words like "up to". Hand the book to someone that's never seen the prior regs and ask them what they think it means, and I'll bet you'll get a confused look and multiple reads longs before you get an opinion. The responsibility of the rulesmakers is to clearly and plainly specify the rule and intent; the fact that there's even a debate on this rule is de facto proof that that job didn't get done. Surprise! Folks read vague rules differently.

Simply admit the mistake, strike the whole damn paragraph, and fix it ASAP, but - as Geo is fond of saying - don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

And stop complaining about people taking advantage of the shortcomings in the vague wording of the rules and installs Motec ECUs, 10-inch wheels, spherical bearings, tube frame chassis, and loads of other crap that was never intended but came about as a [b]DIRECT RESULT[b] of crappy wording in the regs!

And there's no need to be defensive, rude, insulting, and arrogant, Darin. This is an IT rule we're talking, not the end of civilized society as we know it today, and no one's making disparaging comments about your family history. You blew it, get over it.

Greg Amy

01-31-2005, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240:
...suggesting the following wording be added to this rule

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! Stop trying to make this pig into a beauty queen with more makeup and a bigger hairdo. Strike the whole g-damned paragraph and start over again FROM SCRATCH. Open your mind, forget about what you know and what was there for the last twenty years, and WRITE THE RULE WITH THE PROPER INTENT.

All vehicles with 15" or larger wheel diameters shall retain the diameter as per the ITCS spec line. All vehicles with less than 15" wheel diameter may increase diameter to a maximium of 15 inches. Wheels must be made of metal. Knockoff/quickchange type wheels are prohibited.

Those last two sentences SHOULD be on their own spec line, another bit of evidence of putting more makeup on the pig.

SAY WHAT YOU MEAN in a few sentences as possible.

[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited January 31, 2005).]

spnkzss

01-31-2005, 06:09 PM

7.a.1: paraphrased a little

Cars originally equipped..... blah blah blah....... The above-mentioned cars as well as those cars originally equipped with thirteen (13) inch or fourteen (14) inch wheels may fit up to a fifteen (15) inch wheel. All other cars shall retain the wheel diameter fitted as original equipment for their make, model, and type. etc.

I don't quite understand the confusion here. 13s and 14s may fit up to A, and I emphasize "A", 15 inch wheel. All others shall retain the wheel diamter fitted as original. That means to me that anyone running a 15 should stay at 15 since it falls into the "all other cars".

Spanky

Banzai240

01-31-2005, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by GregAmy:
All vehicles with 15" or larger wheel diameters shall retain the diameter as per the ITCS spec line. All vehicles with less than 15" wheel diameter may increase diameter to a maximium of 15 inches. Wheels must be made of metal. Knockoff/quickchange type wheels are prohibited.

WHY the hell would we go start talking about cars originally equiped with 15" wheels, when we are concerned with those that have 13/14" wheels??? There is no need to rewrite the whole damn thing... Besides, everytime we do something like that, we take a chance on either making a bigger mess, or making someones car illegal...

I like your word "increase", however, and would offer this:

"Cars specified with 13 or 14 inch wheels may increase their wheel diameter to a maximum of 15"..."

Is there anything fundamentally wrong with that??? (drum-roll please...)

By the way, this was out for membership input for a LONG freakin' time, with the wording as it's specified... where was all this "brilliant" insight then???

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

Knestis

01-31-2005, 06:42 PM

I'm supposed to be working so don't have it in front of me but was the actual wording, as it appears in the final rule, put out for feedback?

K

Greg Amy

01-31-2005, 06:46 PM

Edit: I'm rewriting my whole response to get it all in one place. Take it if you will, or don't. I don't care; my brakes are too large to reduce wheel diameter (dammit).

Darin sez "There is no need to rewrite the whole damn thing...'. Yes there is, Darin. It's bulky, it's awkward, it's tacked-on, and it's way out of date. It's a rule that's been hacked and plastered-upon for 20+ years and is way overdue for an overhaul. The result of this hacking (it reminds me of a trailer house that's been planted and had multiple additions over 20 years) is that it's just flat not clear what's legal and what the intent is. It breaks the cardinal rule of "Reasonable people can disagree."

Remember, the more words you use, the more words there are to twist around. Thus, the ones you do use should be used sparingly and precisely.

So, what is the intent of this new wheel rule? Is it:
- Allow anyone using metric wheels to move to a comparable standard wheel, and
- Allow someone with 12 inch wheels to move to 13, and
- Allow anyone using 12 inch, metric, 13, and 14 inch wheels to go a larger diameter but 15 inches max, and
- Require any car that uses 15- or 16-inch wheels to retain stock size?

Is this the intention of this rule? Is there anything I have omitted or added? If this is correct, then consider the following:

- First, a casual review of the ITCS shows that there are zero (ZERO!) cars listed with metric wheels. None, nada, zilch, zippo. Thus, all references to metric wheels in the rules is redundant and should be stricken in their entirety. If, in the future, you should choose to classify a car that uses metric wheels, these allowances can be added to the cars' spec lines as is other allowances.

Step one: strike all references in the ITCS 17.1.9.D.7.a.1 to metric wheels.

- Second, there are zero (ZERO!) cars listed in the specs with 12" wheels that are 12" only. Those with 12" wheels are listed as "12/13", thus allowing them to use 13" wheels anyway. All references to 12" wheels in the rules are redundant and should be stricken in their entirety. If, in the future, you should choose to classify cars that use 12" wheels only, the 13" allowance can be added to the cars' spec lines.

Step Two: strike all references in the ITCS 17.1.9.D.7.a.1 to 12" wheels.

Therefore, what we are left with is the desire to allow cars with 13" wheels to use 13", 14", or 15"; cars with 14" to use 14" or 15"; and cars with 15" and 16" wheels to use stock diameter. Do we really need a 40-pound sack of words to describe this 16-ounce desire?

Let's combine our ideals from above, make it precise, make it short, and make it effective. Strike paragraph in its entirety and make it:

All vehicles shall retain stock wheel diameter, except those listed with 13- or 14-inch wheels may increase their wheel diameter to a maximum of 15 inches. Wheels must be made of metal. Knockoff/quickchange type wheels are prohibited.

Voila! I just don't see how we can get more accurate and to the point that that, guys. Three sentences, three restrictions, no waiting...

There's my contribution, and I'm done. I'm going back to the garage and continue stuffing that Cray supercomputer into my spherical bearings...

[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited January 31, 2005).]

Joe Harlan

01-31-2005, 07:24 PM

Yes: it doesn't allow cars with smaller-than-13 inch wheels to increase to a maximum of 15".

edit

[This message has been edited by Joe Harlan (edited February 01, 2005).]

ITSRX7

01-31-2005, 09:35 PM

OK, end it. All you need to do is read the first 8 posts of this thread. We clarified the intent and promised a revision/clarification. We thought is was clear, it wasn't. No sweat.

Back to your regularly scheduled snow-shoveling.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Daryl DeArman

01-31-2005, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240:
By the way, this was out for membership input for a LONG freakin' time, with the wording as it's specified... where was all this "brilliant" insight then???

Some of us might have liked the way it was written and planned to decrease our wheel diameter. Why would we ask for a clarification when we liked the way it was worded?

Geo

01-31-2005, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by GregAmy:
- Second, there are zero (ZERO!) cars listed in the specs with 12" wheels that are 12" only. Those with 12" wheels are listed as "12/13", thus allowing them to use 13" wheels anyway. All references to 12" wheels in the rules are redundant and should be stricken in their entirety.

Why?

What if someone actually wants to use 12" wheels?

I personally think the rule is clear enough. But, in the interest of nipping silliness in the bud, I agree with Andy that we need to issue a clarification.

Good catch on the metric wheels Greg. I'd never even looked at that!

For some reason I thought there was a Pigout 505 in IT (that came with metrics) but in retrospect I'm sure I was just thinking back to when it was a very viable SS car.

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