October Fastrack

[erlrich]

...and I'm beginning to believe this is one of those decisions we're all going to regret later, [/b] What he said.

IMHO all that changed with the new ECU rule is racing in IT just got that much more expensive.

[Knestis]

...Shelby Charger is not allowed to use 14" wheels unless the spec line changes when the car moves from A to B. GCR specifies 15" wheels. So, 14's are not an option in this case. ...[/b]
Sorry - my error. Please disregard any arguments based on that assumption! :)

K

[jjjanos]

I spent thousands of dollors developing the suspension in our Audi's...[/b]

Silly me. I thought the intent of having a category like Improved Touring was so that spending thousands of dollars developing suspensions not only wasn't needed, it wasn't going to be allowed so that everyone else didn't have to spend thousands of dollars developing their suspensions too.

I'm soooooooooooo happy we have consistent rules that enforce the intent and desires of the IT Founding Fathers. It's what makes running IT so darn cost effective.

[jjjanos]

I'm not saying we shouldn't class them. I'm just saying that if you had the choice of buying 15-year-old VW or a 5-year-old Kia to turn into a race car, for the same price, wouldn't most people pick the VW?[/b]

Why? Cause it's uncool to drive a Kia? Try telling a non-racer that the neon was a class killer a few years ago and don't even get me started on when Le Car was Le Bad Ass.

Given the choice of buying a 23-year old Honda or a 5-year old Kia for the same price and classified to have the same approximate competition potential, yeah, I'm going to pick the Kia because there's going to be a whole heck of a lot more parts out there to repair not only my brain farts, but the brain farts of those who use their cars to shove people out of the way on a start.

Problem is, the Kia won't be the same price and for the price of a 5-year old car, I might as well move up a class.

That being said, C is in ICU and it ain't going to get better.

[Knestis]

Scot, I'm sorry if I can't explain the concerns in a way that resonates with you. I tried. Just open your mind to some of these more complex issues, watch for the effects, and you might see some of them. And maybe you'll come to understand why they are a problem but until then - or if you don't - I hope that you're happy with the results, intended or otherwise.

Just remember that less than a year after it happens, someone will use the 7" rim allowance as fodder for his own idea of what has to get changed to keep someone else from abandoning IT.

And (everyone except Scot, because I've clearly failed to convince him and am OK with that) PLEASE try to remember that rules won't ever control costs unless we go to a claimer system. Competitiveness drives spending, and popularity and competitiveness seem to be interactive. Any argument for a new allowance that is based on saving money is either a red herring or a misconception, unless it acts to hurt popularity and make the class less competitive - then whoever is left can go back to spending less money. :)

K

[Bill Miller]

Any argument for a new allowance that is based on saving money is either a red herring or a misconception, unless it acts to hurt popularity and make the class less competitive - then whoever is left can go back to spending less money.[/b]

Thank you Kirk. I believe that's probably the number one justification among those supporting an open ECU rule, is that it will cost people less than it does today.

Renaultfool,

I'm not sure where you're getting your information. Take a look at the NARRC results and then tell us that ITA is 'not far behind' ITB & ITC, in terms of dying. And exactly how is an open ECU rule going to help add more competitive cars to ITC? You can probably count the ITC cars that could benefit from an open ECU on one hand (the only one that I can think of off the top of my head is the New Beetle), and there aren't that many more in ITB.

Greg,

I think you hit the nail on the head. I hope you're wrong, but I don't think so.

Andy,

Those that don't learn from the past are sure to repeat it. Can you honestly say that going from 'MoTec in a box' to an open ECU rule w/ added sensors isn't a textbook case of rules creep?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Those that don't learn from the past are sure to repeat it. Can you honestly say that going from 'MoTec in a box' to an open ECU rule w/ added sensors isn't a textbook case of rules creep? [/b]

It most certainly isn't 'textbook'. Is it creep? Maybe. I just see it is the least 'bad' option.

Technology and the lack of a way to police stock ECU's has gotten us where we are. The option the 'don't open it up' people mostly want is a stock box with chips and reflashes. Trust me when I tell you my research has shown this will end up costing MORE to get to 10/10ths than the current state of programmable units. I have explained how and why I believe this before.

I don't like where we are - but I believe in rules that don't create huge gaps in prep level based on deep pockets - and going backward does that IMHO.

[lateapex911]

....., but IT-B and IT-C are dying now. The rest of you are not far behind. Everyone in the club does not chose to and cannot afford to run $40,000 BMWs in IT-R or whatever. IT needs to remain a class where someone can build a car, out of junkyard parts if necessary, and have a chance to compete.
[/b]

Wow. I have to respectfully, but strongly disagree with your insinuations and suggestions here. ITC? Well, sure it IS withering, and you know what? That's OK.....time moves on. As others point out, there just aren't many cars that fit the class that racers want to race. Honestly, Jeff hit the nail...people buy cars like that because they are cheap transportation. Heck, if we get a request, we'll class them, but aftermarket parts aren't common. If there was a market, they would be. It's pretty straightforward.

But ITB? The very thing you cite that the club needs...a place where you can get a cheap racecar...exists in ITB!!! And I don't know where you live but I just watched a nearly 30 car ITB field take the green at Lime Rock a week ago.

And throwing the demise of IT on ITR, well I think thats stretching it a bit. IT offers choices. Want to race cheap? ITB...heck, even ITA. Want to go a bit faster and have more to spend? ITS, or ITR. Honestly, I could go out and win ITR right now for less than it would cost to win ITB. Seriously. Why? Because it's less popular right now. Thats what drives costs...popularity. It's like an auction. You need two people who want to win. Then it's a spending race. Until then, it's easy and cheap pickings.

Ultimately, people decide which level fits their needs and their budget, and they make their choice. We hit this in another thread, but SCCA is a racing club, where the cars are appliances, and it's about racing. So, yes, if you must race a Honda S2000, you might need to get the checkbook out if there's someone else who wants the trophy more. But....if you want to compete, the rules are setup to give you choices in performance levels and cost levels, you do the research, and you choose whats right for you.



The club is just letting IT-B and IT-C die. I am not convinced that in the time of $3.00 gas, the only cars being made and sold are $40,000 sport sedans. That seems to be the only interest of the club right now. Where are all the Toyotas, Hondas, Nissans, Dawoos, Caveliers, Cobalts, Kias, etc. even the new Wal Mart Chinese car eventually. I see them on the road everyday. OH thats right, they all have ECUs and are not sports models so no one makes anything for them. Poor you if you own one of those. Might as well stay home.
[/b]

Huh??? Look around....again...who drives those cars??? Daewoos? Not a choice of a racer.... but hey, if we got a request, I'm sure we'd class it.

Hondas?? Now really, have you looked at the ITCS in , oh say, the past dozen years?? There are PAGES of Hondas classified! In ITB too! My head SPINS when we go over some Honda DX-LX-EF-CVCC model on the ITAC con calls! Honestly I can not fathom how you can deduce the only interest the club has is in 40K sports cars.



If you don't make it cheaper and simpler for them to get involved they won't come.
[/b]
I agree that simpler would be good, but it's really not that expensive as it stands. Simpler des get problematic, because a simple ruleset is very often an expensive rules set, and an unfair one at that.


While I am on my soapbox, where are the younger racers in our club? There aren't any because they cannot afford a $40,000 race car. Make them a place and they will come.
[/b]
This question is much more complex than that. But, it's NOT because there isn't a cheap entry. And be real, I can hit you with a dozen ads for cars right now that are viable and fun racers that can compete for $5K.

But thats not the problem. The kids have the money, and the time. Cruise a carshow sometime. Or check out some lapping days. I've seen younger guys in their 20s at lapping days with $50K Cadillacs and equally bucks up BMWs, and show cars with paint jobs that cost 5 digits.
But SCCA is about racing, and winning, and lots of people would rather not find out that they aren't #1, or they just get off on cool video displays or whatever. And that's fine.


If you want to make it work get rid of IT-R because it is pricing IT out of the original intent of the rules.
Put a claiming price on all cars in IT to limit some of the over spending.
Don't let anything in that cost over $20,000 new.
Now you have some practical limits. [/b]

ITR is an option...nobody has to choose it. HOW can one option be pricing the rest out of existance> Not logical.
Nothing classed that costs over $20k new? That is a great way to kill IT. First, new pricing is massively unrelated to used residuals. IT requires 5 year old cars, and there are LOTS of really expensive cars that are worth 25% of their new price 5 years old...and some that are worth 80%!

I don't, for one second, think that eliminating choices will foster greater car counts, at least not based on such a limited scope and view.

[vr6guy]

one inch..... not lookin to take a mile. :eclipsee_steering:

[lateapex911]

Why? Cause it's uncool to drive a Kia? Try telling a non-racer that the neon was a class killer a few years ago and don't even get me started on when Le Car was Le Bad Ass.

Given the choice of buying a 23-year old Honda or a 5-year old Kia for the same price and classified to have the same approximate competition potential, yeah, I'm going to pick the Kia because there's going to be a whole heck of a lot more parts out there to repair not only my brain farts, but the brain farts of those who use their cars to shove people out of the way on a start.

Problem is, the Kia won't be the same price and for the price of a 5-year old car, I might as well move up a class.

That being said, C is in ICU and it ain't going to get better. [/b]

Really, think about that more critically....you'd take the KIA because of parts availability? Be serious! What cage would you use? Dampers? Bushings? anti roll bars? a header? Aftermarket support, Honda to Kia is not even comparable. You're right though, that for the cost of a KIA race ready, you could buy a one class up, already built, 20 year old................Honda.

YOU might race a KIA regardless of it's cool factor, but the market won't.

[lateapex911]

I......... The point Im trying to make is that a rule about one inch on the width of a rim to most likely keep someone from being a participant is ridiculous. Ive also watched this "club" be more like a business over the last few decades. This is "improved touring", not national racing. This is supposed to be fun, something that all of us need to be reminded of.



Marc Rider
1990 vw gti
Bildon race car [/b]

Your premise is that you will race if the rule gets changed so that you can race the car you want on the old cheap tires you want....because it saves you money...or makes racing financially possible. Other wise, no dice, right?

So, we change the ruleset for the entire category.....and now, guys who think winning is "fun", have to decide, "Do I get/need" 7" wide rims?. Can I FIT 7" wide rims? LOL...guess what? They canNOT...but hey, that other guy, who hasn't got a built engine but runs a solid second CAN fit them, and does, and lo and behold, he's now winning. Before the rule change, the second place car could have competed for, and gotten a win here and there if he had the full package but now that the rim rule changed, his car just became the big dog. So the guy who was winning, and followed the classic path of testing and developing, thinks, "What the hell were those asshats thinking!?!?! Screw this..." and quits.

So we got one guy in, we cost an entire class a redevelopment process, a bunch of wheels and maybe some tires, and we lost a racer or three....

Again, (and I'm sorry to use you as an example, but..) I haven't seen a compelling reason the reason to change the rule.

[vr6guy]

(Moderator note: this conversation may seem to start disjointed; posts were moved from a rules discussion topic to this one, to isolate the debate on wider wheels...Ed.)



If you think that a 15" rim will make a particular car a top dog then give any car that chooses to use the larger wheels a weight penalty. I will come and race, but completely disagree with the rule.

save your breath, no more bashing......

[lateapex911]

Im what you would call a "budget minded racer". With that said, because of the budget that I have,(or lack of) I........ Heres the catch, the tires are 205-50-15. Which means i would have to fork over $299 per wheel for some ssr's in order to take advantage of this opportunity. All that money being spent because in the gcr it states that I can go to a 15" wheel, but it has to be 6" in width. So, that one inch is keeping me from buying a kosei or a kazera at about $109 a wheel(give or take a few bucks). I really would love to come back to racing after sidelining for the past 6 years, but this simple one inch rule is prob gonna keep from re-entering. ................... That is what I call a tragedy, not only for myself, but for scca. [/b]

Maybe I misunderstood, but from this quote, it appears you want the width rule changed to ease your budget crunch. I was pointing out that while it's a shame you have this issue, opening a rule such as this can lead to unintended consequences, which is where the real tragedy ... for SCCA...lies.

[ScotMac]

So, we change the ruleset for the entire category.....and now, guys who think winning is "fun", have to decide, "Do I get/need" 7" wide rims?. Can I FIT 7" wide rims? LOL...guess what? They canNOT...but hey, that other guy, who hasn't got a built engine but runs a solid second CAN fit them, and does, and lo and behold, he's now winning.
[/b]

What? He wins because he fitted 1" bigger rims? Why? Because they are wider? So? He thus has more weight! The tires are not necessarily wider. In fact, we already have restrictions on how wide the tires can be. So, at best this only gives him a better side-wall angle.

[JLawton]

I don't suggest we go there, but IT-B and IT-C are dying now. The rest of you are not far behind. Everyone in the club does not chose to and cannot afford to run $40,000 BMWs in IT-R or whatever. [/b]


We had 62 ITA cars run in the NARRC series this season............62........That doesn't seem to be dying. There is also a winning ITA 240 in the classifieds right now for $5K or $6K.



This whole thread is turning silly. :bash_1_:

Is IT perfect? No.......
Have the rules gone where most of us don't want them to go? Yes.....
Do we all spend more money than we would like?? Yes!
We would all love to run a season with $4K and a $2K car, but this is 2007, not 1970. The price of everything is going up, not just IT cars. :rolleyes:

Changing the width of the wheel on one car is not going to kill IT. Should we change the rules just because four cars don't want to buy new wheels? Give me a break, I spend more on fuel in a season than the cost of 8 new lightweight wheels.


Silly, silly, silly.........


Hey, if you don't like the way things are running in IT, be part of the process.

[Knestis]

Thank you Kirk. I believe that's probably the number one justification among those supporting an open ECU rule, is that it will cost people less than it does today.[/b]
As someone who is totally OK with the new ECU rule, I see it a little differently: The new rule just allows everyone a much more equitable opportunity to spend the big money.



Honestly, I could go out and win ITR right now for less than it would cost to win ITB. Seriously. Why? Because it's less popular right now. Thats what drives costs...popularity. It's like an auction. You need two people who want to win. Then it's a spending race. Until then, it's easy and cheap pickings.[/b]
THAT is a great analogy. Thanks, Andy.

I CLEARLY remember when the state of the art was such that we could bolt on a set of OTS Konis and a sway bar or two, bolt in a rollbar (cages weren't required), and competitively race IT cars. Then someone got a header and let slip the dogs of the spending war...

I remember when the first 'real race car' showed up in IT: It was an e30 325 from California, that seriously upped the ante with (gasp) coilovers! The quote when we looked it over was, "Dude - that's real race car shit, there" or words to that effect.

Times have changed but the tension comes from walking the fine line between accepting that reality and letting things change too much. The ECU rule is an anomaly that policy realities made impossible to avoid.

K

[RacerBill]

Sorry - my error. Please disregard any arguments based on that assumption! :)

K
[/b]

No problem. You were refering to a larger group of cars, and I am very close to one particular case.

Again, no matter what, I understand both sides of the issue, and will live with whatever shakes out.

[lateapex911]

.......

THAT is a great analogy. Thanks, Andy.


K [/b]

Actually, I think it was me, not Andy,;) who wrote that, but I can see the how easy it is to make that mistake. Some say that it's impossible to tell myself, Andy, and the Stig apart......;)

BTW, that is the best one line summation of the ECU thing that I've seen....

[RacerBill]

Hypothetical question - slightly off thread, but still concerning rules, and oh yeah it is on thread because it concerns the Oct. Fastrack.

What if the rules had not changes a couple of years ago allowing B & C to use 15" wheels. Could the Shelby been moved from A to B seeing as the spec line called for wheels that were not allowed in B?

Kind of like the case of my 944 that came with 8" wheels in the rear. But there are plenty of 16x6's (I would imagine).

[bldn10]

Andy, I guess we'll just have to disagree on his one.



"We had the debate here in this forum and there were arguements on both sides of the issue (I thought they did NOT meet the rule)."

First of all, no one should confuse informal discussions on this board, monitored by a small fraction of the IT community, as satisfying any GCR requirement or SCCA custom for member input prior to changing a rule.



"When a request came in to clarify (Greg Amy IIRC), the CRB was asked specifically what they wanted the rule to encompass because it was grey. We wanted to clarify the rule to say exactly what they wanted it to say. We did just that. A clarification."

Of course, neither I nor lots of drivers here think the rule was grey. Allowing a SB (w/ welding) in place of a bushing under the guise of free bushing material was a joke. It was simply not a clarification but a fundamental change in the rule. IMO what happened was that Jeremy unilaterally let this cat out of the bag, and by the time it came before the CRB it was either too late to put it back and/or they wanted to back Jeremy and save face.

[gran racing]

I really would love to come back to racing after sidelining for the past 6 years, but this simple one inch rule is prob gonna keep from re-entering.[/b]


The point Im trying to make is that a rule about one inch on the width of a rim to most likely keep someone from being a participant is ridiculous.[/b]

Marc, remember there’s a difference between being able to race and having optimum equipment. What rims did your car come with stock? Are you truly not able to buy rims from a junk yard that will fit your car, even if that means 5”, or 5.5”? I drove my Prelude in ITA with 5.5” rims. Actually, I started with 5” rims then upgraded to the 5.5” VW rims. Never did I use rim sizes as a reason that prevented me from getting out there and having fun. In fact, I now use those 5” rims for my rain tires. I have a very tough time hearing this as the sole reason someone doesn’t start / re-enter racing. If that is what a person is stating the reason is, there’s usually a lot more to it.


While I am on my soapbox, where are the younger racers in our club? There aren't any because they cannot afford a $40,000 race car. Make them a place and they will come.[/b]

As Jake mentioned, the reasons are not that simple. NASA has a young membership base. Then there’s drifting. Part of it is marketing, and making more young people aware that it doesn’t have to cost a ton to race. PDXs will be one key element to all of this.


If you want to make it work get rid of IT-R because it is pricing IT out of the original intent of the rules.[/b]

I look at it a bit differently. There are plenty of people who spend a fairly significant amount of money racing in IT. It seems that those people are not so interested in racing in the “lower” classes. ITR gives those people a place to race cars, and may actually help keep them out of some of the lower classes which inturn keeps costs down there.

Hey, can I do one of those “you meant this” quote thing?
People who already own cheap economy cars aren't racers yet. They only own those cars because it's all they can afford now.[/b]

Did I do that right Greg? :lol:


Honestly, Jeff hit the nail...people buy cars like that because they are cheap transportation.[/b]

True, people buy cars like those because they need cheap transportation. Going back to my college days, my now wife bought an inexpensive car that we looked at together. We (alright, really me) wanted something with more power but couldn’t afford it so an ’87 Prelude it was. A bit later on in life, we still had the Prelude and a bit more money, which eventually allowed me to get into racing. Cheap economy cars later in life can mean a car that the owner would be willing to risk damage to, now they own a more expensive car. Don’t discount those people.

While I did complete the classification docs for my car, I found it very challenging and intimidating especially as someone new to SCCA and racing.

[Greg Krom]

Hypothetical question - slightly off thread, but still concerning rules, and oh yeah it is on thread because it concerns the Oct. Fastrack.

What if the rules had not changes a couple of years ago allowing B & C to use 15" wheels. Could the Shelby been moved from A to B seeing as the spec line called for wheels that were not allowed in B?

Kind of like the case of my 944 that came with 8" wheels in the rear. But there are plenty of 16x6's (I would imagine).
[/b]

15" wheels have always been allowed in ITB and ITC, but only when available as OEM.

The rule change of a couple of years ago allowed all cars that came with 13" or 14" wheels OEM to up size to 15".

[vr6guy]

After reading more and more on this subject of the rim diameter and width, I can see the points on both sides. i guess Ill have to bite the bullet and either use what i have or upgrade to the 15" rims. Either way Ill hopefully be racing with all you guys in ITB next year!

[mom'sZ]

I've read this entire thread... whew... it is gut wrenching. I feel sorry for folks who can't find cheap lightwieght wheels for their car. But changing the entire class rules so a few obscure models can save a few bucks on racing wheels is, as Lawton says silly, no silly isn't a strong enough word RETARDED!!! Such a change would throw the entire 'process' into question. An entire reprocessing may need to take place. So a few guys can spend a few less dollars for wheels, come on... spend some of the effort you have used pummeling the ITAC with stupid suggestions backed by rediculous arguments on trying to find a sponsor to help you pay for some bling wheels instead.
My hat is off to every member of the ITAC who worked so hard to bring IT racing to it's current state. Things have never been fairer. The racing seems more competitive with different models winning. This is a tough job, to balance so many models. But for those of us that don't want to race a spec me otter it is the best. THANK YOU guys!!! Just know that the few vocal ingrates are just that, the FEW. The vast majority of guys love what you have done.
Everytime a prickly rule has come up, I've quietly watched. Each time in my mind I've decided what I thought would be most fair for everyone. And each time the ITAC has made the same choice. I wouldn't change a thing. Some folks are scared of open ECU rules. They are computer illiterate and wish we all could be made to use carbs. But this is 2007, all cars have computers on them, we all don't want to race thirty year old junk (see production racing) It's not going to be the death of IT. Coil overs gave us the ability to change spring rates (one of the most basic handling adjustments) with cheap model non-specific springs. At first it must have been scary. But now kits are available for most every car and we think nothing of adding a coil over kit to our racers. Does it cost a few bucks... sure, this is racing. It ain't cheap.
After the all out war that was the debate about our recent restructuring, just prior to the 'process' being applied, I thought we would never hear the end of people whinning about how they had to add wieght to there car and now it's not competitive anymore. But as the season started, all was quiet. The world didn't end. Cars that were overdogs seem slightly reined in, cars that were also rans are coming out of barns and new ones are being built. Everyone seems to agree it was for the overall good of the class. Job extremely well done. Thank you guys thank you thank you.
Jake, the way you sit and calmly reply to each of these posts without going ballistic is admirable. Repeatadly explaining the logic behind each decision, you sir have my vote for president of earth.

[jjjanos]

Really, think about that more critically....you'd take the KIA because of parts availability? Be serious! What cage would you use? Dampers? Bushings? anti roll bars? a header? Aftermarket support, Honda to Kia is not even comparable. You're right though, that for the cost of a KIA race ready, you could buy a one class up, already built, 20 year old................Honda.

YOU might race a KIA regardless of it's cool factor, but the market won't.
[/b]

I bet they said the same thing about alot of the cars that are at the pointy end of IT, but when someone demonstrated the car was raceable, the market responded with all of the extra go-fast bits.

Two guys- one builds a racecar out of a never before raced model and the other buys his parts off the shelf and swaps them into a tub he has stripped - which of the two is actually building a race car?

[JamesB]

they both are since the end goal is the same thing. One takes more custom fabrication then the other.

[Ron Earp]

Two guys- one builds a racecar out of a never before raced model and the other buys his parts off the shelf and swaps them into a tub he has stripped - which of the two is actually building a race car?
[/b]

Having done both I know which one leads to more racing!

I think mom'sz comments are right on.

Ron

[RacerBill]

15" wheels have always been allowed in ITB and ITC, but only when available as OEM.

The rule change of a couple of years ago allowed all cars that came with 13" or 14" wheels OEM to up size to 15".
[/b]

Thanks, Greg!

[Andy Bettencourt]

IMO what happened was that Jeremy unilaterally let this cat out of the bag, and by the time it came before the CRB it was either too late to put it back and/or they wanted to back Jeremy and save face.
[/b]

Bill,

I explained to you how it happened. The ITAC asked the CRB if they felt that SB's met the intent and asked them if they wanted them legal. They said yes. We made the wording more clear. Did I agree with the decision? Nope...but I suck it up and move on.

[ScotMac]

I've read this entire thread... whew... it is gut wrenching. I feel sorry for folks who can't find cheap lightwieght wheels for their car. But changing the entire class rules so a few obscure models can save a few bucks on racing wheels is, as Lawton says silly, no silly isn't a strong enough word RETARDED!!! Such a change would throw the entire 'process' into question. An entire reprocessing may need to take place.
[/b]

You are assuming that the 1" wider wheels gives a performance benefit. It does not, in any appreciable manner, and thus no impact to the process...see my previous post on this:



Because they are wider? So? He thus has more weight! The tires are not necessarily wider. In fact, we already have restrictions on how wide the tires can be. So, at best this only gives him a better side-wall angle.
[/b]

This is not just about a couple of cars. Finding suitable racing wheels in 14x6, or worse 15x6, size is difficult for many of the B and C cars, and is only getting worse. Again, if you read the entire thread, go back and read my message on availability. That information is not for a particular car (bolt pattern), but are for all available wheels.

Maybe you should work on your reading skills? And who exactly are you calling retarded?

[planet6racing]

You are assuming that the 1" wider wheels gives a performance benefit. It does not, in any appreciable manner, and thus no impact to the process...see my previous post on this:
[/b]

Please show your data and testing method to support this absolute claim.

[ScotMac]

Please show your data and testing method to support this absolute claim.
[/b]

Well, it is an absolute fact that a wider rim will increase the weight, leading to worse performance.

It is also obviously true that there is no change the rules on max tire size/width.

So, it comes down to sidewall angle.

Let's see what we are dealing w/:

Let's use 225/50, since that is what a lot of the B racers are running.

6" wheel plus 2 * .5" lip = 7"
7" wheel plus 2 * .5" lip = 8"

The section width for a Hoosier r6 225/50/14 is 9.8", giving:

6" rim: 9.8 - 7 = 2.8 or 1.4" per side
7" rim: 9.8 - 8 = 1.8 or 0.9" per side

(.5" difference, as would be expected)

Since the tire is a "50", and the section width is 9.8", that means the section height is 4.9". Thus the sidewall angles are:

6" rim sidewall angle = arctan(1.4/4.9) = 15.6 degrees
7" rim sidewall angle = arctan(0.9/4.9) = 10.4 degrees

I'll see if there are any studies on what a difference between 10 and 15 degrees sidewall angle causes in a performance application.

However, it also should be noted to any impact is very much tire specific, since the strength of a sidewall varies quite a bit per tire....with racing tires being very much on the high (stiff) end of the spectrum, and thus have less impact from sidewall angle differences.

[vr6guy]

I've read this entire thread... whew... it is gut wrenching. I feel sorry for folks who can't find cheap lightwieght wheels for their car. But changing the entire class rules so a few obscure models can save a few bucks on racing wheels is, as Lawton says silly, no silly isn't a strong enough word RETARDED!!! Such a change would throw the entire 'process' into question. An entire reprocessing may need to take place. So a few guys can spend a few less dollars for wheels, come on... spend some of the effort you have used pummeling the ITAC with stupid suggestions backed by rediculous arguments on trying to find a sponsor to help you pay for some bling wheels instead.
My hat is off to every member of the ITAC who worked so hard to bring IT racing to it's current state. Things have never been fairer. The racing seems more competitive with different models winning. This is a tough job, to balance so many models. But for those of us that don't want to race a spec me otter it is the best. THANK YOU guys!!! Just know that the few vocal ingrates are just that, the FEW. The vast majority of guys love what you have done.
Everytime a prickly rule has come up, I've quietly watched. Each time in my mind I've decided what I thought would be most fair for everyone. And each time the ITAC has made the same choice. I wouldn't change a thing. Some folks are scared of open ECU rules. They are computer illiterate and wish we all could be made to use carbs. But this is 2007, all cars have computers on them, we all don't want to race thirty year old junk (see production racing) It's not going to be the death of IT. Coil overs gave us the ability to change spring rates (one of the most basic handling adjustments) with cheap model non-specific springs. At first it must have been scary. But now kits are available for most every car and we think nothing of adding a coil over kit to our racers. Does it cost a few bucks... sure, this is racing. It ain't cheap.
After the all out war that was the debate about our recent restructuring, just prior to the 'process' being applied, I thought we would never hear the end of people whinning about how they had to add wieght to there car and now it's not competitive anymore. But as the season started, all was quiet. The world didn't end. Cars that were overdogs seem slightly reined in, cars that were also rans are coming out of barns and new ones are being built. Everyone seems to agree it was for the overall good of the class. Job extremely well done. Thank you guys thank you thank you.
Jake, the way you sit and calmly reply to each of these posts without going ballistic is admirable. Repeatadly explaining the logic behind each decision, you sir have my vote for president of earth.
[/b]


I agree with most of what you said in this statement. With exception of the term "retarded". If you could only describe your feelings the way Jake has through out this thread, we would all benefit. You referring to peoples ideas as being "retarded" is demeaning of those peoples,(including myself) views and character. Which is intollerable, and has no reason and or need in such a discussion. We all learn from each other through ideas that everyone of us have. Like I said before, going into this forum I was dead set on the allowance on being able to run 15x7s on my vw. Now, as some of you have brought your opinions to the table in a respectable non abrassive way, I can see both sides of the fence. so please, please do not resort to labeling an idea as being "retarded" or mentally challenged. You might want to throw out an apology if you have offended anyone.

I, as well as most everyone in the improved touring community share the thanks and gratitude to all that volunteer their time and effort. Without them, this sport would be lost!

Marc Rider

[JLawton]

I say we lock this thread down............

[mom'sZ]

Marc, you're right, that was a bad choice of words and I do truly appologize to you if I offended you. I read your post after I posted mine and I thought 'you know there is an open minded guy'.

[vr6guy]

No worries....

[gran racing]

Scot, so would you say that a 5" rim is better than a 6" rim? What about a 4" rim? :rolleyes:

[erlrich]

:dead_horse:

[RacerBill]

Marc, you're right, that was a bad choice of words and I do truly appologize to you if I offended you. I read your post after I posted mine and I thought 'you know there is an open minded guy'.
[/b]

mom'sZ - Thanks for the clarification. But, if I may take one phrase out of one of your previous posts...
'...so a few obscure models can save a few bucks on racing wheels...' In my case, from the prices I have found, would be more in the order of $800-1000 for a set of four. I realize that it may be a few bucks to some, but not to others.

I do agree with most of the other views you expressed.

Helplessly mired in the 'have not' group! :D :D :D

[Gary L]

I'll see if there are any studies on what a difference between 10 and 15 degrees sidewall angle causes in a performance application.

However, it also should be noted to any impact is very much tire specific, since the strength of a sidewall varies quite a bit per tire....with racing tires being very much on the high (stiff) end of the spectrum, and thus have less impact from sidewall angle differences.[/b]

Scot - On the Hoosier website, specifically on the page dealing with the care and feeding of the R6 tires we all know and love, I see a couple of statements that you may want to include in your research: :D


Wheel width dramatically affects wear and performance of the Hoosier P-Metric radial tires.[/b]...and


It is possible to use narrower wheels, but at a sacrifice to shoulder wear and cornering power.[/b]

[lateapex911]

yea, I find the claim that wider wheels aren't really better to be rather questionable myself...

Now, I will say that there is no absolute result here, but....a few years ago I was involved in some testing. We were limited by wheel size and width, and got several sizes to test. Fortunatlely we were able to keep overall diameter and therefore gearing constant. Well surprise, surprise, the skinny tire was a second faster over a 1.5 minute lap. Same manufacturer, same compound, same freakin batch, two drivers, two cars, lots of swapping, and no knowledge of which tire they were on.

Think about it for a second. If you pinch the bead of the tire closer and closer together, is the tread going to remain flat? Or will it bow as the sidewalls bend inward?

A less optimal/square contact patch means the tire ..and the performance....is being compromised.

Now, as I said up front, there are no hard and fast rules, and in some cases, a tire may perform similarly on different width rims, but, I need to see the testing data before I go out and buy smaller wheels.





I bet they said the same thing about alot of the cars that are at the pointy end of IT, but when someone demonstrated the car was raceable, the market responded with all of the extra go-fast bits.


[/b]

Oh, like the Nissan NX2000 suspension parts store next to the Home Depot in my town?

[Bill Miller]

So, we change the ruleset for the entire category.....and now, guys who think winning is "fun", have to decide, "Do I get/need" 7" wide rims?. Can I FIT 7" wide rims? LOL...guess what? They canNOT...but hey, that other guy, who hasn't got a built engine but runs a solid second CAN fit them, and does, and lo and behold, he's now winning. Before the rule change, the second place car could have competed for, and gotten a win here and there if he had the full package but now that the rim rule changed, his car just became the big dog. So the guy who was winning, and followed the classic path of testing and developing, thinks, "What the hell were those asshats thinking!?!?! Screw this..." and quits.

So we got one guy in, we cost an entire class a redevelopment process, a bunch of wheels and maybe some tires, and we lost a racer or three....[/b]

Substitute 'open ECU' for '7" rims'.

Mom,

It may be a few, obscure cars today, but what happens if (when?) the 1st gen RX7 gets moved to ITB? If the opponents of the '7" wheels for everybody' option feel that it would make cars instantly way faster, why not go w/ the additional weight if you want to run them?

[ScotMac]

What we need to remember in this discussion of sidewall angle is its relative importance on the overall performance of the car. The question is how much of an impact does 5 degrees of sidewall angle have, in comparison to the other more macro features of the car that the classification is based on, like hp-to-weight, suspension geometry, weight distribution, etc?

What i have been saying all along is that it is mainly wear issue, and i am glad to see that Hoosier agrees w/ me on that point. I am not saying that it isn't also a handling gain (which hoosier also references) i am just saying that it is not large enough to cause appreciable classification issues.

In fact, it is interesting to note that Hoosier recommends that 225/50/14 for 6-8" rims. ie, Hoosier believes the sidewall angle is acceptable for both 6" and 7" rims.

[Gary L]

In fact, it is interesting to note that Hoosier recommends that 225/50/14 for 6-8" rims. ie, Hoosier believes the sidewall angle is acceptable for both 6" and 7" rims.[/b]Acceptable? Maybe. Ideal? Not even close. If you read the entire paragraph from which I extracted the two quotes in my post above, you come to the very clear conclusion that even wider would be better. The calculations show the ideal rim width for a 225/50-14 (or 225/50-15) to be about 8".

I'm a firm believer in following the tire manufacturers' recommendation, and for that reason, I run 205/50-15's on the Volvo with the prescribed ITB 6". Yupper, that's 2640 pounds on 205's. But because they're on the proper wheel, they work (and wear) very nicely IMO.

[planet6racing]

Well, it is an absolute fact that a wider rim will increase the weight, leading to worse performance.

It is also obviously true that there is no change the rules on max tire size/width.

So, it comes down to sidewall angle.

Let's see what we are dealing w/:

Let's use 225/50, since that is what a lot of the B racers are running.

6" wheel plus 2 * .5" lip = 7"
7" wheel plus 2 * .5" lip = 8"

The section width for a Hoosier r6 225/50/14 is 9.8", giving:

6" rim: 9.8 - 7 = 2.8 or 1.4" per side
7" rim: 9.8 - 8 = 1.8 or 0.9" per side

(.5" difference, as would be expected)

Since the tire is a "50", and the section width is 9.8", that means the section height is 4.9". Thus the sidewall angles are:

6" rim sidewall angle = arctan(1.4/4.9) = 15.6 degrees
7" rim sidewall angle = arctan(0.9/4.9) = 10.4 degrees

I'll see if there are any studies on what a difference between 10 and 15 degrees sidewall angle causes in a performance application.

However, it also should be noted to any impact is very much tire specific, since the strength of a sidewall varies quite a bit per tire....with racing tires being very much on the high (stiff) end of the spectrum, and thus have less impact from sidewall angle differences.
[/b]

This is not data. This is a calculation based on a supposition. Please provide DATA that supports your absolute claim.

[ScotMac]

This is not data. This is a calculation based on a supposition. Please provide DATA that supports your absolute claim.
[/b]

Wrong. It is FACTS about what we are dealing w/, in terms of the sidewall angle issue. If you want me to help you, a better complaint from your perspective would be that it is not a study on the performance issue, as requested. Of course, i never said it was a study of the performance, instead just a look at what we are talking about for sidewall angle.

[ScotMac]

Acceptable? Maybe. Ideal? Not even close. If you read the entire paragraph from which I extracted the two quotes in my post above, you come to the very clear conclusion that even wider would be better. The calculations show the ideal rim width for a 225/50-14 (or 225/50-15) to be about 8".

I'm a firm believer in following the tire manufacturers' recommendation, and for that reason, I run 205/50-15's on the Volvo with the prescribed ITB 6". Yupper, that's 2640 pounds on 205's. But because they're on the proper wheel, they work (and wear) very nicely IMO.
[/b]

I agree that there is always an ideal width for a particular tire. And i agree that if you get too far from that ideal, it will cause wear and performance issues.

However, i disagree w/ your numbers, and that wider is necessarily better. Both too narrow and too wide can cause wear and performance issues. If you look at the hoosier spec chart (see URL below), the recommended sizes typically start just a bit NARROWER than the actually tread width for almost EVERY one of the r6 tires, though only slightly narrower.

For the 225/50/14 (or 225/50/15), Hoosier's recommended rim widths are 6-8 for a tread width of 8.8". If you look at the chart, the range for the recommended rims is typically .3" to 1" narrower than the tread width. Typically, Hoosier will bracket the "ideal" rim size by 1" for the "recommended" rim sizes. So, though 7" would be ideal, by Hoosier recommendations, and 6" and 8" are both not far off, and should not show substantial wear and performance issues. ie, *1* inch is not that big of deal.

[JoshS]

However, i disagree w/ your numbers, and that wider is necessarily better. Both too narrow and too wide can cause wear and performance issues. If you look at the hoosier spec chart (see URL below), the recommended sizes typically start just a bit NARROWER than the actually tread width for almost EVERY one of the r6 tires, though only slightly narrower.

For the 225/50/14 (or 225/50/15), Hoosier's recommended rim widths are 6-8 for a tread width of 8.8". If you look at the chart, the range for the recommended rims is typically .3" to 1" narrower than the tread width. Typically, Hoosier will bracket the "ideal" rim size by 1" for the "recommended" rim sizes. So, though 7" would be ideal, by Hoosier recommendations, and 6" and 8" are both not far off, and should not show substantial wear and performance issues. ie, *1* inch is not that big of deal.
[/b]
Scot, you're making a couple of bad assumptions there. Your conclusions may be correct, I'm not sure, but I am pretty sure that you've made some conclusion based on at least one incorrect premise.

The "ideal" rim size is not that -- it's the rim size that the industry says should be used to measure the tire. The recommended range *is* what it says, but you are using measurement numbers that are on a wheel size that Hoosier doesn't pick.

Quoting the Hoosier website (http://www.hoosiertire.com/faqrr.htm):

"Why are the listed rim dimensions different than the recommendations?

Whenever a D.O.T. tire spec is published there are Tire & Rim Association guidelines for the specific rim size for a particular tire. This is intended to standardize the information so that it is possible to compare one brand of tire to another.

For performance uses these Tire & Rim Association recommendations may not reflect a best choice or the designed application."

[Gary L]

So, though 7" would be ideal, by Hoosier recommendations, and 6" and 8" are both not far off, and should not show substantial wear and performance issues. ie, *1* inch is not that big of deal.
[/b] As Josh has pointed out, the 7 inch rim is not the ideal rim width for a 225/50, it is simply the width of the rim used to create some of the rest of the numbers in the chart. Forget the chart... read and understand what they actually have to say in their paragraph about wheel width. That's where (it certainly bears repeating) they state without reservation: "Wheel width dramatically affects wear and performance of the Hoosier P-Metric radial tires".

One inch of rim width is a big deal. It is a performance issue.

[planet6racing]

Wrong. It is FACTS about what we are dealing w/, in terms of the sidewall angle issue. If you want me to help you, a better complaint from your perspective would be that it is not a study on the performance issue, as requested. Of course, i never said it was a study of the performance, instead just a look at what we are talking about for sidewall angle.
[/b]

No. Your supposition is that sidewall angle will define the performance of the wheel/tire combo. You've done calculations to show that there is a difference in sidewall angle between the two wheel widths and, therefore, there will be a performance difference. This is a calculation used to support your "hypothesis."

You made an absolute claim in your post. Either find studies that support it (e.g. Grassroots Motorsports tire testing) or post other data that you have collected. Calculations and hypotheses are not acceptable.

(and, yes, I am being a prick about this. I know. I do not like it when people make absolute claims and have NOTHING to back it up. If the post is changed to say "may," I'll be satisfied.)

[Knestis]

(Moderator note: this conversation may seem to start disjointed; posts were moved from a rules discussion topic to this one, to isolate the debate on wider wheels...Ed.)[/b]
Hey, Ed. I have major concerns about this kind of move setting a precedent.

This community has always been pretty good at policing its own, leaving the moderators to the mundane task of deleting bot posts about Paris Hilton's private parts, etc. If we get in the business of trying to manage topics by moving posts, the threads where they came from get muddled, there's no way to follow arguments and counter-arguments, and we are one HUGE step toward policing thought.

Just one guy's concerns.

K

[mom'sZ]

Yeah Bill, For sure. My car uses a 4 x 114.3 bolt pattern. Even being an ITS car, thus being able to use the 15 x 7 wheels, I can only find Volks, Montegi, and Koseis in the price range of $250 - $450 a piece. How about 2 grand for a set of wheels :blink:
Paying for them is one thing, getting them in the house without momma finding out what they cost is another :rolleyes:

[ScotMac]

Is someone deleting posts in this thread? Or is there a problem w/ the software? It is missing my posts to the thread for the last two days!

In fact, i have browser tab up w/ a page that clearly shows *3* of the posts, which are not visible if i bring this thread up in a new tab or window. But that is not all the missing messages.

Is there some type of forum moderation (censoring) going on? And if so, why?

[gran racing]

Yeah, someone broke our wheel size discussion off into a seperate thread. It confused the heck out of me too! Hopefully we'll just leave the threads alone in the future for situations like this or create a new thread w/o cutting stuff away from the existing one.

[Knestis]

...Is there some type of forum moderation (censoring) going on? And if so, why? [/b]

Yes - a moderator took it upon him/herself to start a spin-off topic at...

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...topic=13062&hl= (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13062&hl=)

I've voiced my opinion that this is a bad idea there and will reiterate here. We do NOT need suggestions that someone is manipulating the content of discussions here, or even the tone unless it gets really horrible.

K

[Greg Amy]

We do NOT need suggestions that someone is manipulating the content of discussions here, or even the tone unless it gets really horrible.[/b]
It was not "manipulated", nor censored; nothing was edited or deleted. And, the tone WAS getting very horrible (and in many ways, personal). Still is.

I did this spin-off; I'll put it back given it's getting titties in such a major twistie. I believed, spurred on by a couple of private - and one public - comment about closing the topic, that a "technical" discussion in regards to the performance advantages - or not - of wider wheels was better served in a "Technical" forum than buried in the Rules and Regs forum in a discussion about the latest October Fastrack.

But, it's back home now. Enjoy. - GA

[Knestis]

Sorry, Greg - I wasn't suggesting that any content HAD been manipulated. I'm was simply worried that someone could SUGGEST that this was the case, or feel like they'd been diddled.

K

[planet6racing]

Alright, I'll stop being a prick. Absolute statements just get me going. It's just my line of work. I'm sorry...

For pennance I'll go put together a test plan for testing 43 different spherical bearings... :D

[ScotMac]

Yes - a moderator took it upon him/herself to start a spin-off topic at...

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...topic=13062&hl= (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13062&hl=)

I've voiced my opinion that this is a bad idea there and will reiterate here. We do NOT need suggestions that someone is manipulating the content of discussions here, or even the tone unless it gets really horrible.

K
[/b]

Right. In fact, there was only really 2 things being discussed (lately), ecu and wheels, and i don't think it was difficult to parse between the two. Also, he has moved some of my messages, w/ out moving the messages i was replying to. So, it makes it appear that the opposing points made are undisputed. Not good.





But, it's back home now. Enjoy. - GA
[/b]

Thanks Greg. I understand your point, but believe that "at this point" it is best left here.

[ScotMac]

No. Your supposition is that sidewall angle will define the performance of the wheel/tire combo. You've done calculations to show that there is a difference in sidewall angle between the two wheel widths and, therefore, there will be a performance difference. This is a calculation used to support your "hypothesis."
[/b]

As i said before, i never said (nor meant to imply) that my calculations are a study of the performance impact of sidewall. I did the calculations to "see what we are talking about here". ie, get an idea what the difference is, in order to evaluate it. In the absence of a such a study, it is useful to fully quantify what we are talking about here, to get an idea what that study *might* find.






The "ideal" rim size is not that -- it's the rim size that the industry says should be used to measure the tire. The recommended range *is* what it says, but you are using measurement numbers that are on a wheel size that Hoosier doesn't pick.

Quoting the Hoosier website (http://www.hoosiertire.com/faqrr.htm):

"Why are the listed rim dimensions different than the recommendations?

Whenever a D.O.T. tire spec is published there are Tire & Rim Association guidelines for the specific rim size for a particular tire. This is intended to standardize the information so that it is possible to compare one brand of tire to another.

For performance uses these Tire & Rim Association recommendations may not reflect a best choice or the designed application."
[/b]

Sorry, but i don't believe that is true. Hoosier very clearly differentiates the "measured rim" from the "recommended rim". And they explain that they are different, because the industry requires the "measured rim" to be a *particular* size, for comparison purposes. However, the "recommended rim's" are all Hoosier.

Oh, i see the misunderstanding. Do you believe that made my statements about "ideal" based on the "measured rim"? That is not true, at all. Gary, brought up the concept of "ideal", and i just answered him based on Hoosier's "recommended rim" sizes. ie, i assumed (logically) that the "ideal" would be the middle of the recommended rim sizes.

[mom'sZ]

Mom,
It may be a few, obscure cars today, but what happens if (when?) the 1st gen RX7 gets moved to ITB? If the opponents of the '7" wheels for everybody' option feel that it would make cars instantly way faster, why not go w/ the additional weight if you want to run them?
[/b]
Well, I'm not really an opponent of 7" wheels for everyone. It's kind of like the ECU rule though, if we go back to stock with flash/chip, all the guys that have a motec in a box get screwed. (I know, I know... tough luck) Well what about all the folks in B and C who have laid down big bucks for super lightwieght 6" rims? I personally think a weight penalty for this or that makes the rule set even more confusing. (I feel the same way about dual classification) Remember a few months ago when they briefly considered making all of us put a sticker on the car with our minimum weight to make life easier on the scrutineers? Then it would have to say 'this many pounds if 6" wheels, this many if 7"' Like SG says 'I'm not saying, I'm just saying' (is that it?)
How about letting the B and C guys decide? I know getting a consensus around here is like herding cats.
One thing that strikes me though, is how some folks have warned that a little creep leads to more creep, one allowance giving rise to more allowances. For example the allowance for 15" dia wheels being used as a reason for 1" more width being OK. Slippery slope indeed.
Andy Rowe

[ScotMac]

I think this "few obscure cars" thing has gone way too far. Where as it is true that the problem is greater for particular bolt patterns (5x100), it is not true that the supply issue is ONLY for cars w/ those bolt patterns. Please go back and take a look at my post of the relative supply of the different sizes. That data is not just for a particular bolt pattern, but is instead across ALL bolt patterns.

[JoshS]

Oh, i see the misunderstanding. Do you believe that made my statements about "ideal" based on the "measured rim"? That is not true, at all. Gary, brought up the concept of "ideal", and i just answered him based on Hoosier's "recommended rim" sizes. ie, i assumed (logically) that the "ideal" would be the middle of the recommended rim sizes.
[/b]
Oh. My bad :-) Yes, I thought you were saying that Hoosier's "measured rim" was "ideal." So, gotcha, I agree, it seems likely that Hoosier's ideal size would be the middle of the recommended range.

But it's still the case that the tread width/section width numbers you were referencing were based on the "measured" rim width, so there could be some variance.

Again, not sure what this does to the conclusion, if anything.

[Knestis]

...One thing that strikes me though, is how some folks have warned that a little creep leads to more creep, one allowance giving rise to more allowances. For example the allowance for 15" dia wheels being used as a reason for 1" more width being OK. Slippery slope indeed.
Andy Rowe
[/b]
So it's NOT just me? That's kind of encouraging. :)

K

[Eagle7]

Thanks Greg. I understand your point, but believe that "at this point" it is best left here.[/b]

I would much prefer that if you want an extended discussion of wheels that you open a wheels topic.

[gran racing]

Per your request Marty...

Link to More wheel talk. Really? Ah, why not. :) (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13067)

[shwah]

Wow. This discussion is still going on...

And even with a side discussion about the state of, and location of the discussion under discussion.

We are really out doing ourselves this time :P

(Oh not that I am rejoining, but I just did a search for wheels in the size I choose to run 13x6, 4x100 - guess what, lightweight racing ones are very expensive, but I will keep looking and saving - at some point one method or the other will get me what I want)