October Fastrack [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

77ITA

09-21-2007, 08:54 AM

77ITA, I would like to know who you stood on my head, barked like a dog, and said my ABCs backwards for?[/b]

I'm glad you asked.

I stood on my head by having to do more than simply request the car to be classified. On July 04th, I sent a letter of consideration to the CRB (using the appropriate online form). The car is already classified in SSB, so as I explained in that letter; There should be no reason for me to submit a VTS. Jeremy Thonnes replied on the 6th and told me to send a VTS anyway, because "We have a factory repair manual for the Spyder but not a VTS".

Isn't a factory repair manual going to have all the info from the VTS and more? I most certainly didn't have all of the info requested on the VTS. Connecting rod mass? Coil spring material and thickness? uh.... yeah.. I also have it on good authority from someone that used to work in the clubracing department that there should be no reason to send a VTS to get an SS car classified in IT.

I barked like a dog because you can't simply fill out the VTS, save it, then e-mail it back to the CRB.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v139/quattrojeff/vtsBS.jpg

Whomever drafted this document originally set it up so that it can not be filled in, then saved. It's not a big deal to have to print it out and mail it in the old fashion way, but it certainly makes it more of an effort. (I tried the document on multiple computers, so I know it's not just me that can't save it with the info filled in)

I said my ABCs backwards by sitting on my bum since then waiting for the car to be classed. It's hard enough to decide on building a different car, but even harder when you have three less months to do it in.

Lastly, it appears I will do a double back-flip on a skateboard by having to go through the whole process again because my second letter (with the VTS) was apparently lost in the snail mail.

I hope you can understand my frustration. :)

Andy Bettencourt

09-21-2007, 09:19 AM

Jeff,

Here is the easy way:

Look in the GCR for what the SCCA publishes for info on the Spec lines for each car in the ITCS. Write an e-mail to the CRB (crb AT scca.com) with that info (brake sizes, etc) plus stock hp and torque numbers. I will do the rest.

AB

RacerBowie

09-21-2007, 09:28 AM

If you have Acrobat Writer you can save stuff into the VTS form via "Save a Copy". If you have Acrobat Reader (the free one) you can't. Strictly a function of the software.

Perhaps they could also make the VTS form available as a word document to fix this? I dunno, that might not work for reasons of formatting.

JamesB

09-21-2007, 09:34 AM

James, one of the items you missed was it looks like you and I will be in the same class next year.
[/b]

Matt,

I did not get down that far, too much to read and my brain was all mushy after 7 hours of trouble shooting a rather tricky and elusive problem with an entire hospitals LAN switches randomly having amnesia.

Yup, I caught that. I think it's a fine idea. 'Course, many folks will be unhappy with a torquey 2.2L engine in ITB (especially the less-torquey ITB 2.0L Honda engine owners...) I am glad, though, that "they" finally got around to recognizing there wasn't a whole hell of a lot of difference between the white-label Turismo/Charger and the "Shelby" Charger; though 110 pounds difference seems excessive...and what's with yet another 100+ pounds for the Daytona and Shadow?

Should make for a fun time, though!
[/b]

I dont know the only daytona I race with is a rookie and trying to get his program together.

RacerBill

09-21-2007, 09:55 AM

James, one of the items you missed was it looks like you and I will be in the same class next year.
[/b]

Glad I did not invest in any 15" x 6.5" or 15" x 7" light weight wheels!

Anybody have a source of reasonably priced lighter wheels 15" x 6" ?????????

AntonioGG

09-21-2007, 10:59 AM

How about this one:

Item 10. Effective 1/1/08: Change section 9.1.12 Note 1 as follows:
For the purposes of this section, “entrants” shall be defined as drivers classified in the final official race results of National races as finishers, did-not-finish (DNF), did not qualify (DNQ), did-not-start (DNS), or disqualified (DQ). <strike>Drivers classified as did-not-start (DNS) shall not count as entrants.</strike>

tnord

09-21-2007, 11:15 AM

cmaclean

09-21-2007, 11:36 AM

BS.

goes back to my complaints in the 'what's wrong with IT thread.'

just finding more and more ways to allow dead classes to survive.
[/b]

Wow, you're right. If I simply sign up for the race and don't show up at the track I get a DNS so I'm counted towards the national participation numbers? NICE. BS indeed.

Who should we write to to express our displeasure? That really is not right at all. Lots of decisions are made based on those participation numbers. That's really, really bad.

JoshS

09-21-2007, 12:45 PM

Now that all of those items (DNS, DNF, DNQ, finishers, entrants) have been clarified ... are the participation numbers still counting "entrants?" Or, for example, are they now counting the combination of DNF+finishers?

benspeed

09-21-2007, 04:42 PM

Maybe you guys won't care since this isn't IT related, but I want to express some great satisfaction with our classing proceedures. I submitted a letter to move my fuel injected, aluminum block stock car into GT2 or worst case GT1.

I received a call today from Stan Clayton with the CRB who had a list of very thoughtful questions about the car and information I needed to provide regarding the motor and the source for other sealed 400hp LS1 engines. He felt that there was a good opportunity the car might be classed in GT next year - no guarantees on competitiveness etc.

Its cool as heck that folks really take a well thought out, well articulated request seriously and care about getting a car classed to compete nationally.

It's Friday and I'm going to go :birra:

Cheers!

PS- you don't want my SPO/GT drivel here, tell me another good forum to go post on :unsure:

keycom

09-21-2007, 05:07 PM

Wow, you're right. If I simply sign up for the race and don't show up at the track I get a DNS so I'm counted towards the national participation numbers? NICE. BS indeed.

[/b]

Read closer:
"DNS (Did Not Start) – A driver/car combination that qualified for, but did not start the race."

My bold emphasis.

JLawton

09-22-2007, 08:20 AM

PS- you don't want my SPO/GT drivel here, tell me another good forum to go post on :unsure:
[/b]

Try: www.slowdriverswithbighorsepower.com

Sorry Ben, couldn't resist!! Come back and race with the fast guys!!

benspeed

09-22-2007, 09:33 AM

That site's as good as www.moremoneythantalent.com/racing :-)

The Fiero still sits in the garage, the last dyno run didn't make the power. I think I might melt it down into some new fiberglass fenders for the stocker.

Stan

09-22-2007, 11:22 AM

Thanks for the nice words, Ben. I know that the GTAC is very interested in your request (very well prepared, BTW), and are prepared to take action on it when the concerns we discussed are addressed.

Jeff, Jeremy does an incredible amount of work in support of our thousands of licensed competitors, but expecting him to fill out your paperwork might just be asking too much at times. Heck, I sent in a homologation package (think VTS, but for open wheel cars) last year....part of it got lost. I sent it in again last month...they never received it. Finally, I asked him to stand by the fax while I sent it yet again. Mission accomplished. I know that mud slinging on the intertubes is more fun, but a little civility and diligence on one's part generally gets more accomplished. In the meantime, take up Andy's offer.

To those of you who think properly accounting for everyone who shows up at a race in "BS", I urge you to take a deep breath and reconsider. I know that you scrape for every thousandth of a second in qualifying. Will you be happy to accept a slot two rows back because T&S rounded to the nearest second? Proper accounting is important to everyone in this hobby, and the changes you refer to are to standardize reporting across the country, and to be able to categorize every racer who shows up, even if they blow a motor on the first lap of practice, Regional or National.

Off to read the "what's wrong with IT" thread... :023:

lateapex911

09-22-2007, 01:27 PM

Ben...c'mon...huge torque, mid engine goodness, great brakes, that car should be great at Lime Rock and NHIS...bring it out and give the A boys hell. (myself included, grrrrr, LOL)

ScotMac

09-22-2007, 01:58 PM

The 2.2 motors coming into B can't be more torquey than the 2.5 Fieros we race with now. The local one here tells me he gets about 108hp and 190 lb-ft :o . It sure does leap off the corners. I am glad to see all of the cars moving into B.
[/b]

How the hell does he get that? I assume rwhp? Dynojet?

I have a hooker race header, and the head has been ported to match the header and intake, and the head has been leveled, and the intake has been made direct (removed the stupid rain flap). I just had the car dyno'd (dynojet), and it was 94hp and 137ft-lbs. Stock is around 95hp at the flywheel, so i have probably gained about 12hp (assuming 15% for flywheel vs rear-wheel). I don't have an .040 build. Maybe an 040 would get you to the 108hp (doubt it), but there is no way it is going to net 55ft-lbs of torque!! In fact, i think the car is listed w/ too high of weight (2550). Where the hell did you get those numbers??? :bash_1_:

924Guy

09-23-2007, 08:58 AM

The Fiero still sits in the garage, the last dyno run didn't make the power. I think I might melt it down into some new fiberglass fenders for the stocker.
[/b]

Ya know, Ben, racecars get a lot faster when they actually hit the track... hint hint...

I've seen plenty of crap Fear-Os out there, raced against them, they're slow, but it doesn't stop them coming back... at a certain point you have to say, it's good enough, start turning laps!

A race build is never done, IMO... I'm still building my car going on 9 seasons now!!! Got a lot of trophies in the meantime...

Gary L

09-23-2007, 10:20 AM

The 2.2 motors coming into B can't be more torquey than the 2.5 Fieros we race with now. The local one here tells me he gets about 108hp and 190 lb-ft :o . It sure does leap off the corners. I am glad to see all of the cars moving into B. [/b]I'm with ScotMac on that torque number... Whoa!!!

Let me guess... would this happen to be the car that set the ITB lap record at Blackhawk Farms last fall? :rolleyes:

ScotMac

09-23-2007, 10:59 AM

I'm with ScotMac on that torque number... Whoa!!!

Let me guess... would this happen to be the car that set the ITB lap record at Blackhawk Farms last fall? :rolleyes:
[/b]

That's true...isn't Wheaton about an hour from Blackhawk Farms? That car didn't just set the track record. I could see a particular track record being soft. It *also* beat all but one of the ITA cars, and i believe it was a pretty strong field.

I have heard that the right cam on a duke will give about 25-30hp. So, that is about a 30% gain. 30% applied to the torque would be ~180ft-lbs.

However, i don't know if you can talk much either Gary. Aren't those Vee-Ul-Vos atleast 150 hp, w/ similar (or more) torque than a (normal duke-based...ie, NOT 190ft-lbs) Fiero, and the 142 is only 90lbs heavier? ;)

As i said, the (normal duke-based) Fiero probably should have its weight adjusted down 70-80lbs.

Gary L

09-23-2007, 01:22 PM

However, i don't know if you can talk much either Gary. Aren't those Vee-Ul-Vos atleast 150 hp, w/ similar (or more) torque than a (normal duke-based...ie, NOT 190ft-lbs) Fiero, and the 142 is only 90lbs heavier? ;) [/b]

Now waitadang minute here! We're supposed to be talking about Fee-Air-O's, not Vee-Ul-Vo's. :D Anyhow, if you're referring to Volvo rwhp, you're about 25 hp optimistic, give or take a few. And no, I don't believe a 10/10th's Volvo build will even beat your 137 lb-ft of torque at the rear wheels... keep in mind, they were only about 130 hp and 130 tq at the flywheel as delivered, and those numbers were produced under the older (pre-1973 or so) SAE test regimen, so they were optimistic by at least 5%. And besides, in addition to the 90 lbs, you forgot some things about the venerable ITB benchmark... like the pickup-truck rear suspension, the frontal area that's about half again that of your Fiero, the barn door aerodynamic shape, the much higher CG, the 1960's analog fuel injection computer, etc., etc. It does have better brakes and 50/50 weight distritbution is easily attainable. Equal corner weights... not so much. Why did they have to put a 35 pound battery in the extreme reaches of the LF corner???? :blink:

As i said, the (normal duke-based) Fiero probably should have its weight adjusted down 70-80lbs. [/b]

The question is... could you actually make 2470 w/driver? Legally?

ScotMac

09-24-2007, 12:41 AM

Anyhow, if you're referring to Volvo rwhp, you're about 25 hp optimistic, give or take a few. And no, I don't believe a 10/10th's Volvo build will even beat your 137 lb-ft of torque at the rear wheels... keep in mind, they were only about 130 hp and 130 tq at the flywheel as delivered, ...

It does have better brakes and 50/50 weight distritbution is easily attainable. Equal corner weights... not so much. Why did they have to put a 35 pound battery in the extreme reaches of the LF corner???? :blink:
[/b]

130 and 130...hmmm seems like more when they go by me on the straights.

You sound like me, in terms of the brakes. The only reason my car has actually *won* anything is because of the brakes. Was able to complete a twelve hour w/out replacing pads! ;-)

The question is... could you actually make 2470 w/driver? Legally?
[/b]

Yep, that is a valid question. I am actually about 50lbs overweight right now. But i haven't looked at the car and the rules enough to know how much more i can take off. Hopefully i take it off the rear end of the car. Someone else was talking about the polar moment of the mr2's...well they should try a Fiero. I have spun it at every track i have been to soo far. Driving it in the rain w/ slicks on is REALLY an interesting experience.

shwah

09-24-2007, 09:25 AM

Yeah the same car that was at BHF last fall (edit - with any luck we can make that record a moot point in October, we were .1s off that time in July, and at this point are probably not the fastest B VW running here). I don't know any detail on the numbers, they just tossed them out in a conversation telling me how good that car was for Road America, and wondering how we can even get around the corners with our tall VWs. :eclipsee_steering:

There may well have been some embellishment in those statements, but I can tell you that he was wayyyy faster than the rest of us down the straight.

ScotMac

09-24-2007, 12:05 PM

There may well have been some embellishment in those statements, but I can tell you that he was wayyyy faster than the rest of us down the straight.
[/b]

Hmmm...i am about the same as the rabbits on the straights, and much slower than the Volvo's and 2002's. Wonder what he did to get the car to be that fast? I am not saying he is illegal, but can anyone think of something that would legally make his car that much faster than mine?

shwah

09-24-2007, 12:23 PM

ScotMac

09-24-2007, 05:16 PM

Oh I am not prepared to question legality of the car. That BHF record was set in perfect fast conditions, and I am not totally surprised that are car with 40% more displacement using a 'truck' motor makes a bunch more torque than I do.

I just don't know enough about that animal to form an opinion one way or another.

If he shows up again I will try to ask some questions about what the tricks for that motor are.
[/b]

But he also beat all but one of the ITA cars, and the ITA cars had the same conditions he had.

Thanks for offering to do a little reconnaissance, Chris. And don't be afraid to peek into the engine bay, take off the air cleaner and peek down the intake, take off the head and measure the cylinders, do a compression check, listen to the cam durations, ... ;)

1stGenBoy

09-25-2007, 12:06 PM

Oh I am not prepared to question legality of the car. That BHF record was set in perfect fast conditions, and I am not totally surprised that are car with 40% more displacement using a 'truck' motor makes a bunch more torque than I do.

I just don't know enough about that animal to form an opinion one way or another.

If he shows up again I will try to ask some questions about what the tricks for that motor are.
[/b]

I'm not sure if you will see that car again this year ( we are talking about the yellow one right?)
I tried to file a protest on that car on Sat morning of the Kettle race at RA but was asked by the stewards to not continue on with the protest due to mitigating circumstances of the driver. I was told that he would finish last in his class on both days just to get his two finishes for his license. I heard he stuffed it into the wall pretty good on Sun. I was not there on Sun so I cannot attest to that.

planet6racing

09-25-2007, 12:37 PM

He did stuff it good into the wall (at 12 at Road America). I believe he was OK. But, you're right, we probably won't see that car again this year.

Knestis

09-25-2007, 01:26 PM

...I tried to file a protest on that car on Sat morning of the Kettle race at RA but was asked by the stewards to not continue on with the protest due to mitigating circumstances of the driver. ...
[/b]
Every time I hear about this kind of crap, I get more irritated at our system. It reminds me of when I taught school and we didn't go to the the police when actual laws were broken in the building. It's counter-productive to "take care of things" like this. Grrr.

K

tnord

09-25-2007, 01:39 PM

Andy Bettencourt

09-25-2007, 02:13 PM

And that is when you need to act locally and fix these things. The process isn't broken, the people are.

shwah

09-25-2007, 02:24 PM

He did stuff it good into the wall (at 12 at Road America). I believe he was OK. But, you're right, we probably won't see that car again this year.
[/b]
Yeah I almost pushed him through the kink, and then he rocketed off. So I had a decent view of the incident. Basically just went in a bit too hot and too late to get it hauled down and went off in the sand trap. I didn't see any wall contact, but the sand ripped bumper covers off. If cosmetic, I wonder if the car can make it back out.

The driver is an alright guy, I talked to him a bit before the race. They were gone by the time I got back from impound. His buddy is a talker though. I know lots of this has little to do with the thread, sorry folks.

1stGenBoy

09-25-2007, 03:27 PM

Every time I hear about this kind of crap, I get more irritated at our system. It reminds me of when I taught school and we didn't go to the the police when actual laws were broken in the building. It's counter-productive to "take care of things" like this. Grrr.

K
[/b]

I'm confused? What did I do wrong? After it was explained to me the reason why by the stewards I had no issue with it except that the car was still non compliant. They accepted the liability for the infraction if something happened not me.

Greg Amy

09-25-2007, 03:53 PM

I'm confused? What did I do wrong? After it was explained to me the reason why by the stewards I had no issue with it except that the car was still non compliant. They accepted the liability for the infraction if something happened not me.[/b]
Ours is a system of self-policing; when someone is non-compliant it is OUR responsibility as competitors to file the paperwork. What Kirk is upset about is that some stewards even TRIED to talk you out of protesting a non-compliant vehicle for reason TOTALLY unrepresentative of why you were protesting. In other words, they were willing to overlook a non-compliant vehicle so that the guy could keep his license (and, inferentially, so they didn't have to do anything about it).

That's all fine and Good Samaritan and stuff, but that ain't the way the system works. You should have filed the paperwork against the illegal car, and at worst he could have re-registered under a different catch-all class (e.g., SPU/O, ITE) to keep his license. Using that excuse to "forgive" a non-compliant vehicle is unforgivable. So he's a nice guy; do nice guys get a pass on the rules...? If so, which rules; where does it stop?

BTW, I can't imagine what "liability" you think they accepted with their actions.

There's a system in place. Unless and until SCCA decides to go pro-active on enforcing the rules, you and I have to use the existing system to do so. It's OUR responsibility. - GA

Andy Bettencourt

09-25-2007, 03:55 PM

BTW, I can't imagine what "liability" you think they accepted with their actions.

[/b]

Cage compliance. Did not meet minimums.

Greg Amy

09-25-2007, 04:03 PM

Cage compliance. Did not meet minimums.[/b]
OK, you lost me: were we referring to protesting a car for non-compliant go-fast stuff ('fast Volvos') or for improper cage? I can't find where we were talking about a cage...

If the cage was non-compliant, then there was definitely an SCCA liability issue, but not something the competitor should have been specifically concerned with. Yes, we can protest unsafe cages, but those matters are best handled by bringing them to the attention of Tech. If nothing happens after that, and you truly believe it's unsafe, then yes, you should file a protest WITHOUT FAIL, but possibly against the technical steward... - GA

Gary L

09-25-2007, 04:14 PM

OK, you lost me: were we referring to protesting a car for non-compliant go-fast stuff ('fast Volvos') or for improper cage? I can't find where we were talking about a cage...[/b]

I'll obviously let 1stGenBoy speak for himself, but I'll bet the protest was NOT going to be about an unsafe cage. :D

And for the record, the car in question wasn't a "fast Volvo", but what appeared to be an unusually fast (in a straight line) ITB Fiero.

Andy Bettencourt

09-25-2007, 05:28 PM

OK, you lost me: were we referring to protesting a car for non-compliant go-fast stuff ('fast Volvos') or for improper cage? I can't find where we were talking about a cage...
[/b]

You might have been talking about go-fast stuff, but I don't see where the protestor said what he protested. Cage is the only think I can think of that might have 'liability' attached to it.

shwah

09-25-2007, 05:53 PM

The cage on that car was non-compliant. He was allowed to race, but not allowed to have finishing position count. I don't personally know anything to suggest the car is illegal, or legal for that matter, on the go fast front.

1stGenBoy

09-25-2007, 06:02 PM

I'll obviously let 1stGenBoy speak for himself, but I'll bet the protest was NOT going to be about an unsafe cage. :D

And for the record, the car in question wasn't a "fast Volvo", but what appeared to be an unusually fast (in a straight line) ITB Fiero.
[/b]

Yup, it was a cage issue. Here's the story:
In late June or early July the stewards sent several people home from the track because they did not have the second passenger side door bar in. Later in July the same thing happened at another track in our division. Now the Fiero guy shows up at RA with only one door bar on the passenger side. Same stewards,same chief of tech,etc. Now he does have a funny angle bar from the front down hoop to the one side bar that is already in place. Clearly no second door bar that is legal. My point was not to get this guy tossed but to point out to the stewards that you cannot have a double standard. Some of the other people at the earlier events drove several hours to get to the event. Was it their fault for not reading the rules and rule changes? You bet it was. How about noting the issue in the log book to have it fixed by the next event?
That was my point in this whole thing. The other point was SCCA needs to be more customer friendly and work with competitors instead of just sending them home.
Make sense?

ScotMac

09-25-2007, 06:18 PM

Knestis

09-25-2007, 06:23 PM

My interpretation was that the protest was going to be for illegal go-fast bits - although I don't think my opinion about the stewards' actions (Greg was right on) would really be any different for cage issues.

K

1stGenBoy

09-25-2007, 06:46 PM

Well, there is also the issue of duke based fiero blowing cars away on the straights, and the proposed 190ft-lbs of torque. Obviously nothing definite there, but there could also be issues on the "go-fast-front".

And yes, the stewards should definitely be consistent on the (safety) rules. However, there is a waiver on that rule til jan 2008 for cars originally tech'd before 2002 (1? 3?). ie, we are already letting cars out w/out the double bars.
[/b]

Where did you see that? I would be interested in forwarding that on to our Divisional steward for review of the stewards actions at these events. They get graded on their performance through out the year and this might make them think a little before reacting so quickly. Not trying to throw anybody under the bus and they are volunteers too but.... still.

lateapex911

09-25-2007, 07:12 PM

There's a waiver? News to me.......

ScotMac

09-25-2007, 08:27 PM

Just looked it up. I knew i saw it somewhere, but wasn't sure where. It turns out it is for "Touring", not IT (and the year is 2003)...but there is a waiver B) :

18.3 TOURING ROLL CAGES
1. All cars registered after 1/1/03 shall conform to these roll cage
rules. Effective 1/1/08 all Touring cars shall conform to these
roll cage rules. ...

shwah

09-25-2007, 08:49 PM

Bill is right, they made a big stink about this at RA in June, and at BHF in April. The inconsistency does need to be brought to light. Just like any other sport, I can accept that officials may not rule the way I would, but expect them to be consistent with their interpretations - sort of like a strike zone in baseball. If you start calling it one way, keep it up until the end.

dickita15

09-26-2007, 05:28 AM

Guy, consistency is a wonderful goal but some of this is “ball and strikes”. Stewards are umpires and they use their best judgment at the time.
At our April School-regional weekend I was helping out Tech and ended up lobbying the chief steward to allow a car with one door bar to participate. I succeeded for the school but the different Chief Steward for the region decided against. Each had very good well thought out reasons for their final decision and I can’t say either were wrong.

On one hand some say we need to be user friendly and flexible and on the other hand some say be consistent (which means inflexible).

Club racing is run by humans. Humans are imperfect. Therefore club racing is imperfect.

tnord

09-26-2007, 08:48 AM

Guy, consistency is a wonderful goal but some of this is “ball and strikes”. Stewards are umpires and they use their best judgment at the time.
[/b]

don't give them that much credit. there are plenty out there who just want to feel powerful and do everything they can to avoid paperwork.

dickita15

09-26-2007, 08:54 AM

don't give them that much credit. there are plenty out there who just want to feel powerful and do everything they can to avoid paperwork.
[/b]
There are good drivers and bad drivers, there are good stewards and bad stewards. I am sorry your default position is to blame evil. That is really a position more at home on the Prod site rather than in the real world.

Andy Bettencourt

09-26-2007, 09:00 AM

Guy, consistency is a wonderful goal but some of this is "ball and strikes". Stewards are umpires and they use their best judgment at the time.
At our April School-regional weekend I was helping out Tech and ended up lobbying the chief steward to allow a car with one door bar to participate. I succeeded for the school but the different Chief Steward for the region decided against. Each had very good well thought out reasons for their final decision and I can't say either were wrong.

On one hand some say we need to be user friendly and flexible and on the other hand some say be consistent (which means inflexible).

Club racing is run by humans. Humans are imperfect. Therefore club racing is imperfect.
[/b]

Dick - I am with you 99%. The other 1% has to do with official processes. If this was an issue being bantered around at tech between officials, fine. But as soon as a competitor brings forward an official protest for something non-compliant, all 'nice guy' stuff has to get set aside. It is the wish of a driver to protest another for a non-complaint car. Done deal.

Knestis

09-26-2007, 09:10 AM

If we looked at the proportion of "intended protests" that get derailed either before they become "official protests," I think we'd be a little disappointed at the number. Looking only at protest processes that I've directly witnessed, way to many have been "managed" or manipulated in some fashion. Sure - at the end of a season, there are only a very few cases of this across the country but we have so few actual protests in Regionals that I believe it's meaningful. Heck - it might well be part of the reason we DO have so few protests.

K

dickita15

09-26-2007, 11:03 AM

Yes officials should not be preventing a driver from filing a protest, but for god sake we need to have a little backbone. I am not going to be too hard on a steward that tells a driver why he would prefer I not file one but I have to have a little fortitude in this as well. I have only filed one driver to drive protest in my life (for crashing me out). In that case no one tried to talk me out of it (they know me, and my mood was not good) but I understand that they would want to make sure I understand the entire situation, we need to take some responsibility for the process.
In addition I would bet many protests are poorly written or have unrealistic expectation of the outcome.
Steward: and what would be the desired outcome of this protest for you.
Driver: I want him to be cowering under his trailer and crying like a little girl.

zchris

09-26-2007, 11:14 AM

No Dick,
Official: What would you like us to do.
Driver: Just hold him while I beat some sence into him.

Bill Miller

09-26-2007, 03:31 PM

It should have never gotten to the point that 1stGen had to file a protest, the car should have never been issued a tech sticker if it had a non-compliant cage. You want to file a protest, file it against the person that issued the tech sticker or the person that signed off on the annual tech inspection.

Kirk's right on the money w/ this one. Having stewards intervene in these types of issues is not a good thing.

And if you want to talk about liability, if the driver of said car had been involved in an incident w/ another car, and the other car (or driver) sustained damage or injury, the person issuing the tech sticker, as well as the steward who discouraged the protest would be on the hook.

If the person issuing the tech sticker / annual doesn't know the rules enough to know that the cage is non-complaint, then they shouldn't be in that position (and spare me the whole 'but they're volunteers' rhetoric, you still have to be competent at what you volunteer for).

And the lack of consistency on the steward's part is a real problem. If he sent others home for the same, or similar violations, and allowed this person to race, he should have his license pulled.

dickita15

09-26-2007, 07:02 PM

That is a reasonable position Bill, but remember that it was a legal cage last year. No one said the Tech worker did not know it was noncompliant. My guess is the steward gave him a fix by next race. It is okay to take a hard line stance on enforcing the new cage rule but just don’t argue in the next thread we need to be more user friendly.

Gary L

09-26-2007, 07:35 PM

That is a reasonable position Bill, but remember that it was a legal cage last year.[/b] As were the cages in the cars that were sent home from earlier events by the same officials???

Bill Miller

09-26-2007, 07:56 PM

As were the cages in the cars that were sent home from earlier events by the same officials???
[/b]

Thank you Gary.

Not trying to take a hard line Dick, so please don't make it out like that. It's about officials and their inconsistent interpretation and application of the rules. You want to talk about user-friendly, that's the place to start. And it's no excuse for a tech official to not be up on major rule changes like that. I'm fine w/ the 'fix it by next race' approach, but give everyone that same benefit of the doubt.

You want to talk hard line and non user-friendly, I saw tech inspectors busting people's chops at the first race of the season about fuel test ports, the year that those were mandated. By the same token, I've seen tech inspectors that didn't know the rules. The main one that comes to mind is what constitutes and attachment point, the tube or the plate. I had an inspector tell me he wasn't going to issue me my annual because I had too many attachment points on my cage, because I had multiple tubes going to the same plate. This was a car that was given an annual, at the same track, w/ the same cage, the year before. The guy got to the point of almost being belligerent, and I had to pull out the GCR and show him the rule. What made it even worse, was that I had to insist that we look at the GCR. He didn't want to look at it, and didn't want to hear anything other than it was one tube per plate.

Andy Bettencourt

09-26-2007, 08:00 PM

There is room for both opinions here. I like the 'flexibility' of the tech staff to allow someone to run with 'last years cage' and a 'change by next event'. We all want to have fun and we need to bend here and there.

BUT, when the same staff has sent people home in previous weeks for the same violation, it becomes very strange.

THEN, an official protest comes in. End of story. End of nice guys. By the book. Maybe a small attempt to explain the position of allowing him to run but based on the recent history of bouncing similar situations, the protest needed to be the main priority.

We are all human but it's also nice to see common sense prevail more often than not. I am lucky in that I get to run in a region where CS is the rule, not the exception...so maybe my expectations are high.

x-ring

09-27-2007, 09:21 AM

Wait a minute, Bill

... the car should have never been issued a tech sticker if it had a non-compliant cage. You want to file a protest, file it against the person that issued the tech sticker ...[/b]

and

... the person issuing the tech sticker ... would be on the hook[/b]

and

If the person issuing the tech sticker / annual doesn't know the rules enough to know that the cage is non-complaint, then they shouldn't be in that position.[/b]

rub me a little bit the wrong way, but maybe you're not completely aware of Tech's operating procedure per the club's published Scrutineer's Manual and the GCR. The Scrutineer that issued the tech sticker would have no reason to look at the cage if the car has a current, valid, annual stamp in the logbook, and no tech notations entered since that annual inspection. Per the GCR, 5.9.2.B: Minimum inspection for each event thereafter (after the annual inspection, that is) shall consist of reviewing the Vehicle Logbook. If it is in order, a Tech sticker shall (emphasis mine) be issued.

It isn't the guy who issued the sticker's fault. It looks to me like he did what he was supposed to do. Who ever did the annual, well, that's maybe a different story.

OK, I'm not smart enough to quote two different people in one reply, so this is from Andy B:

I like the 'flexibility' of the tech staff to allow someone to run with 'last years cage' and a 'change by next event'. We all want to have fun and we need to bend here and there.
[/b]

I don't know what the Divisional Administrator for Tech in your division (Bill Etherington?) allows, Andy, but I absolutely don't allow the scrutineers (including myself) in RMDiv this kind of latitude. For one thing, there isn't anything in the GCR or the Scrutineer's Manual that permits it.

Jeremy told me some time ago: Tech is like Fox News -- We report, you decide. The 'you' in this case is the Chief Steward.

Also, as Bill mentioned, there is the liability issue. I can just hear the widow's lawyer: "Am I to understand that you allowed the deceased to race his car with known safety issues?" :018:

AFAIK, only the CS can allow a non-compliant car on course, and I like it that way.

And the lack of consistency on the steward's part is a real problem. If he sent others home for the same, or similar violations, and allowed this person to race, he should have his license pulled.
[/b]

I'd have a hard time disagreeing with that, but I wasn't there. I will say that I've seen it in the past, and it really ticks me off.

1stGenBoy

09-27-2007, 10:28 AM

Update: This was the cars first event of the year so it did not have an annual inspection prior to this point. The chief of tech did inform the chief steward of the event about the non-compliant cage and it was her decision to let him run. As I said I did not want the guy DQ'ed I, just wanted to point out to the stewards that they need to be consistant about applying the rules. I agree that it should have been noted in the logbook to fix before the next event and maybe it was. I did not see the logbook. They should have accorded that to the other cars earlier in the year also. That was my point.

Knestis

09-27-2007, 10:34 AM

... just wanted to point out to the stewards that they need to be consistant about applying the rules. ...
[/b]

Exactly - right back to "protest the official's decision." But let's get real here: How many of us are willing to set themselves up for the kind of scrutiny THAT'S going to generate? (See also, "racing is supposed to be fun"). :)

K

itracer

09-27-2007, 12:40 PM

just wanted to point out to the stewards that they need to be consistant about applying the rules.
[/b]

Each Steward is an individual and interprets rules and the GCR differently. That is why you can protest one of the Stewards and it goes to the SOM, which is comprised of multiple Stewards. If you had two different Chief Stewards for these two events, you may have different opinions.

This is why we have the protest/appeal process -- It is not perfect, but it is better than some. (see post about NASA's penalty on a different thread).

Jason Benagh (Steward in Training)

Stan

09-27-2007, 01:00 PM

This is why we have the protest/appeal process -- It is not perfect, but it is better than some. (see post about NASA's penalty on a different thread).[/b]
Which thread is that in, Jason?

Thx! Stan

erlrich

09-27-2007, 01:17 PM

Which thread is that in, Jason?

Thx! Stan [/b] I think he's talking about this one: http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...40&#entry124617 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12768&pid=124617&st=40&#entry124617)

Stan

09-27-2007, 02:14 PM

Got it...thanks Earl!

Bill Miller

09-27-2007, 05:53 PM

RSTPerformance

09-27-2007, 09:46 PM

Each Steward is an individual and interprets rules and the GCR differently. That is why you can protest one of the Stewards and it goes to the SOM, which is comprised of multiple Stewards. If you had two different Chief Stewards for these two events, you may have different opinions.

This is why we have the protest/appeal process -- It is not perfect, but it is better than some. (see post about NASA's penalty on a different thread).

Jason Benagh (Steward in Training)
[/b]

Jason is correct... I hate inconsistancies especially when you have different stewards with different "corrective actions" between race groups and/or different events within region, but it does happen, and when it does protest it and bring it to the SOM where multiple people can try to make a reasonable and fair decision... I have personally done it, others have done it and Stewards have even done it to each other in my presence!

Raymond "NASA was looking good, but it stll hasn't got anything on SCCA" Blethen

shwah

09-27-2007, 10:38 PM

Wow. All this hubub because I thought it was no big deal to have another torquey ITB car, since we already have some. :dead_horse:

TGIGRTW!
(thank God I'm goin racing this weeend)

924Guy

09-28-2007, 07:53 AM

TGIGRTW!
(thank God I'm goin racing this weeend)
[/b]

Amen, brutha! :birra:

x-ring

09-28-2007, 09:09 AM

Ty,

Please don't edit out the parts where I said "the person that issued the tech sticker / annual" and then say that it's not on the person that issued the tech sticker. I tried to cover both cases (annual and no annual). I know that if the car has an annual w/ no notations in the log book, that the tech inspector at a subsequent race isn't going to see the car. If it was given an annual w/ a non-compliant cage, then the liability falls back to the person that issued the annual.
[/b]

I did that edit, Bill, because I wanted to emphasize the separation of the two processes, not to slant your words to better attack you. I can, looking back now, see why you would take it that way, though. Sorry 'bout that.

What I was trying to illustrate with that post, was the difference between the annual inspection process and the event tech process, especially to maybe a newbie, who may not understand the difference, and probably hasn't read and understood the entire GCR.

During the Runoffs last year I heard there were a number of people pissed off at me because of the occasional inconsistency of penalties for technical infractions in SM. Others were quick to point out that we, tech that is, have nothing to do with penalties and that those offended should direct their dissatisfaction elsewhere. What all that tells me is that many racers have incorrect ideas about how the club operates and, unfortunately, tech tends to get dumped on for things which we have no control over.

For that reason, I tend to take every opportunity to get the word out that we're not the bad guys. Well, not always anyway.
<_<

But, based on the info that came to light after both of our posts, it seems that the car didn't have an annual, and the the chief steward was the one that allowed the car to run. He'd be the one on the hook in that case. There are some things that just should not be given a pass, because of the potential liability that they open up. Non-compliant cages, out of date belts, out of date helmet, etc. I really don't understand why someone that's really supposed to know better would open themselves up like that.
[/b]

Me either.

Bill Miller

09-28-2007, 06:42 PM

Sounds good Ty, thanks for the clarification. :023:

Bob Roth

09-30-2007, 06:33 PM

On this "send the guy home" attitude, I would like to make a dissenting voice. I believe the average regional racer is lucky to get three races in a year, and given the pasion of competition board for revising rules, I think many well intentioned racers have cars that do not conform to new rules. Ok, tell that guy and his wife, pack it up send it home because his belts are three years old or there isn't a 2nd passenger bar. Liability? so SCCA says that cars that were legal in 2004 are unsafe? Give me a break.

I do not disagree with continually raising the bar on safety, but in the end, the risk is the drivers not SCCA's. I say, for infrigements such as cracked windshield, no second bar or other cage infringements due to rule change, or the dreaded non confirming/non existant sample port etc. It is perfectly appropriate for the steward to inform the driver that his car has a problem, note it in the log book and let the driver decide if he wants to race. Sending them home should be a last, not first resort.

Before somebody gets on their high horse and insists its gotta be this way, go ahead and join a SCCA speed touring series team crew and do a couple of tech's in that series. They really want their cars to make the race. There are many things that are not compliant but safe. Give tech inspectors the latitude to communicate instead of exclude on the first notice. SCCA is in a big enough dogfight to keep drivers comng to its regional races, lets not give people unnecessary reasons to look at other orgs.

Knestis

09-30-2007, 07:30 PM

JeffYoung

09-30-2007, 08:13 PM

True. I showed up at a NASA event with a dead kill switch (didn't know it). They let me run after discovering it. I ran the first day, and then though, if they let me run, what else is out there? I packed up and went home.

People find the GCR intimidating. Other than the roll cage rules, it takes what, perhaps a couple of hours to figure out the rules for IT? Given the stakes -- i.e. serious injury/our lives -- reading and understanding the GCR doesn't seem like too onerous of a responsibility for anyone wanting to run.

dickita15

10-01-2007, 06:39 AM

All of the examples you give are things that should be determined during an annual tech.

Anyone who wants to defect to EMRA or ICSCC because they show up without reading the rulebook and without getting an annual before they go racing, and get dinged because they have some significant problem with a rollcage or something similar...?

Whatever. Take some responsibility.

K
[/b]
Wow Kirk, hard line.
I do not believe you annual tech comment is relevant. For 95% of the racers that is not a separate event. They get their annual when they show up for their first event of the year, adding stress to that event.
In most cases I find that Tech and the Stewards try to get the guy on track with a fix by next event notation. That seems like a reasonable course of action. I have never prevented a guy from racing over a fuel port or an undersized tow hook. Expired belts or not having the latest cage update is harder, as a tech worker I have to defer to the steward and they have to decide if they feel they can wave a safety item that might bite them.

rlward

10-01-2007, 10:55 AM

James, one of the items you missed was it looks like you and I will be in the same class next year.
[/b]
SO are all the other Shelby Racers OK with with this change? I hope not. I know I am not. I have spent the entire season rebuilding a car to be competitive. New wheel, new engine, new suspension... the whole works. It appears I might have wasted money on the wheels, The weight planning is now out the window. The added weight means more tire wear. The weight is in the wrong place. My list go on and on. I think I was the only one to write the comp board in protest of the change, yet it appears the change may take place anyway.

Please write the board and protest the change. We can beat the miatas with better prep!

Rodger Ward
Cal Club
#18.....till i die
84 Shelby

Greg Amy

10-01-2007, 11:13 AM

Rodger, the change is already a done deal, effective next year.

Kirk/Dick: I, too, prefer to take a hard line against folks that don't read the rules, but I'm flexible to a degree. I have no problem with someone showing up for their first annual inspection and getting a one-time signoff for items like passenger door bars and the like. But, don't even bother presenting that logbook to me again until those items are resolved...

Andy Bettencourt

10-01-2007, 11:14 AM

SO are all the other Shelby Racers OK with with this change? I hope not. I know I am not. I have spent the entire season rebuilding a car to be competitive. New wheel, new engine, new suspension... the whole works. It appears I might have wasted money on the wheels, The weight planning is now out the window. The added weight means more tire wear. The weight is in the wrong place. My list go on and on. I think I was the only one to write the comp board in protest of the change, yet it appears the change may take place anyway.

Please write the board and protest the change. We can beat the miatas with better prep!

Rodger Ward
Cal Club
#18.....till i die
84 Shelby [/b]

110hp, FWD and struts. That ain't no ITA car. Come on.

Knestis

10-01-2007, 11:49 AM

Wow Kirk, hard line. ...[/b]
But to be more clear, I don't philosophically include "a fuel port or an undersized tow hook" to be among "significant problems with a rollcage or something similar." Remember that this whole question started with missing door bars... Didn't it??

I kind of get a kick out of Roger's response. No matter what change is made, it will create a problem for somebody.

K

gran racing

10-01-2007, 12:25 PM

Roger, if you're building a car to be competitive, this is the absolute best thing that could have happened to you. Keep up with the well prepped and well driven Miatas, NX2000, Tegs, CRXs? Some of those cars have 150 plus HP at the wheels. In a competitive region, the Charger is set-up to fail in ITA and would never have a shot at being in the front of the field in these races. Being a driver of a car that went from ITA > ITB, I think you'll really enjoy this change.

Wheels? There's a decent market out there for you to sell your wheels and buy some fairly inexpensive ones that are pretty darn lite. ($119 each). Buying new wheels (heck, I'll even include steel junk yard rims in this) and moving to ITB will yield you the best dollar-for-dollar improvement.

Rims Link (http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/WheelCloseUpServlet?target=runWheelSearch&initialPartNumber=TS001S&wheelMake=Kosei&wheelModel=K1+TS&wheelFinish=Silver+Painted&showRear=no&autoMake=Dodge&autoModel=Charger&autoYear=1984&autoModClar=&filterSize=All&filterFinish=All&filterSpecial=false&filterBrand=All&filterNew=All&sort=Brand)

tom91ita

10-01-2007, 01:16 PM

my car also went from ita to itb (85-87 crx si) and racing is FUN again!

i'm not real thrilled about the nominal 150 # weight increase (went from 1800 for the car in ITA several years ago to 2130 with driver) but there are other cars on track that are not lapping me. :D

welcome to the B list. :birra:

Matt Rowe

10-01-2007, 05:36 PM

Wheels? There's a decent market out there for you to sell your wheels and buy some fairly inexpensive ones that are pretty darn lite. ($119 each). Buying new wheels (heck, I'll even include steel junk yard rims in this) and moving to ITB will yield you the best dollar-for-dollar improvement.

Rims Link (http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/WheelCloseUpServlet?target=runWheelSearch&initialPartNumber=TS001S&wheelMake=Kosei&wheelModel=K1+TS&wheelFinish=Silver+Painted&showRear=no&autoMake=Dodge&autoModel=Charger&autoYear=1984&autoModClar=&filterSize=All&filterFinish=All&filterSpecial=false&filterBrand=All&filterNew=All&sort=Brand)
[/b]
Too bad those wheels probably won't fit. And don't fool yourself that he is going to lose money selling his current set despite only being a year old.

I think what is most aggravating about this is we just went through a category wide realignment a few years ago and despite raising the question this car was left as is. Now a couple of years latter we are suddenly told the car obviously doesn't fit ITA. If it is so obvious why wasn't it adjusted then?

I personally don't want my car moved, I have a great time racing with the group that I am currently in and would much rather drop some weight and remain in A. But in general this is a good move for this car and besides I already have another car in miind for next season so I won't fight this. But someone dropped the ball on this during the realignment and the car owners have wasted a couple years while it has been sorted out.

Andy Bettencourt

10-01-2007, 06:28 PM

So let me get this straight: You would rather stay, yet this is a good overall decision. You would rather stay but you have wasted 2 years? Suspension and engine development is not thrown away because you were doing that all along.

It was looked at during the re-alignment but there were so questions as to what made up the Shelby part of the package. It was put under the microscope when a member officially requested it's move. Nobody dropped the ball, we just moved slowly and with caution on a car we didn't know much about that not many people run. When the request came in, we acted. Sorry if that doesn't hold water for you.

Matt Rowe

10-01-2007, 07:58 PM

So let me get this straight: You would rather stay, yet this is a good overall decision. You would rather stay but you have wasted 2 years? Suspension and engine development is not thrown away because you were doing that all along.[/b]
Suspension development? I would feel better about that except you give up an inch of wheel width. That is going to affect the setup, especially on a car that already overheats the tires in a sprint race.

But that isn't my point. Yes, I would rather stay because I like the group I race with in ITA. In a very strong field I can still run with a solid group of cars. Cars that with a little more work on the nut behind the wheel I can aspire to beating. Of course I alreaady made arrangments to move on to a different car precisely because I know that car won't be competitive in ITA.

So as the car will never win an ITA race in a competitive field it stands a really good chance in ITB. So yes it is better for the car overall, I just have no interest in running in ITB. And maybe I am a little annoyed that I am investing a lot more money to change cars only now to be told this car is being moved . The real point is moving a couple years ago when everything was being shuffled makes much more sense. Moving now just throws another wrench into the plans of anyone that has one of these.

110hp, FWD and struts. That ain't no ITA car. Come on.
[/b]

It was looked at during the re-alignment but there were so questions as to what made up the Shelby part of the package. It was put under the microscope when a member officially requested it's move. Nobody dropped the ball, we just moved slowly and with caution on a car we didn't know much about that not many people run. When the request came in, we acted. Sorry if that doesn't hold water for you.
[/b]
The first statement doesn't look like anyone needed it to be put under a microscope, your statement makes it sound like this was a no brainer. As for not many people running them, during the realignment I had repeated contact with you and others on the ITAC and specifically asked about the car. Not once was any information requested about the Shelby package. Again, it feels like this one slipped through the cracks because it wasn't a priority. I can certainly understand how much work was being done at the time and not every car was being research to the same extent. But maybe you can understand why those of us with those cars feel like we were overlooked, in your own words we were. Maybe if five minutes had been taken out of the endless debate on the MR2 you would have had a chance to look at this car. :D

As for being put under the microscope I had at most a five minute conversation with one of the ITAC members a few months ago. It didn't take long to fill him in on the car and I don't get the sense there was ever any doubt the car should be in ITB. This decision could have been made a couple years back and should have. That's all.

Andy Bettencourt

10-01-2007, 08:53 PM

As for being put under the microscope I had at most a five minute conversation with one of the ITAC members a few months ago. It didn't take long to fill him in on the car and I don't get the sense there was ever any doubt the car should be in ITB. This decision could have been made a couple years back and should have. That's all. [/b]

Well your 'sense' would be wrong. This car was 50-50 yes/no before we verified it wasn't 'more' than a 110hp car with silver and blue paint. For me, it was always an ITB car but it's a committee after all.

And you know what? No matter when it got moved, you are going to hit someone during an 'inconvienent' period. It's the right thing to do, it took longer than it should have and I am sorry for those who think it sucks but lets all realize its the right thing in the end - and that is the point.

ScotMac

10-01-2007, 10:28 PM

It appears I might have wasted money on the wheels, ...

Please write the board and protest the change. We can beat the miatas with better prep!

[/b]

And, as as fallback, write the board to get common 7" wheels for ITA, ITB, and ITC (I sent my letter in today). That way, no one in the future will be screwed by such a class change.

Yes, it is difficult for the people who have spent good money on the 6"/5.5" wheels, but we should shoot for a better future.

Suspension development? I would feel better about that except you give up an inch of wheel width. That is going to affect the setup, especially on a car that already overheats the tires in a sprint race.

[/b]

Write that letter in support of my common 7" wheel change!!! :D

dickita15

10-02-2007, 05:52 AM

Suspension development? I would feel better about that except you give up an inch of wheel width. That is going to affect the setup, especially on a car that already overheats the tires in a sprint race.

[/b]
The weight reduction, if achievable should help the tire problem more than the 6” wheels will hurt.

Knestis

10-02-2007, 07:22 AM

...Write that letter in support of my common 7" wheel change!!! :D[/b]
Thereby putting the burden for the change on those of us who have invested in 6" wheels. And in my case, that would be FIFTEEN 6" wheels. And unlike moving from 7's to 6's, there would be NO resale market for 14x6 alloys, if 7s become legal.

Point being - as Andy has touched on - classing and specification decisions like this have to be weighed by their value to the category as a whole, balanced against the grief that they cause the folks whose current situations are settled.

THIS is a huge part of the reason that reactive competition adjustments (bleah) are such a horrible idea but caution is still a very good idea, even within the current system. We all want to preserve and advocate for our individual positions and investments but I have to be able to trust that the ITAC will make changes not because someone - or even a lot of someones - want them, but because they are good for the category.

K

shwah

10-02-2007, 08:41 AM

The current B cars seem to be able to get by just fine on 6" wheels. Even cars with similar specs to the Shelby.

Of course, I selfishly would like to keep using my 20+ existing 6" wheels.

gran racing

10-02-2007, 09:32 AM

That way, no one in the future will be screwed by such a class change.[/b]

Screwed? You've got to be kidding me. The car goes from being in a class where it has no shot to one where it can be competitive. Yeah, you really got screwed on this deal. :rolleyes:

Matt, I understand your frustration about the timing, and how you've grown to like racing with the ITA group but come on. Affect setup? So slightly change the camber settings.

JamesB

10-02-2007, 10:21 AM

Matt I understand your fustration about the move, but seriously you would still have a lot of great people to race with in ITB had you not already moved to change cars. Plus other then the wheels size you know what tires I stuff on my rims and I dont have that much of an issue other then someone I can trust to put that tire on the rim without breaking it. Think about the Volvo's and what they deal with tire wise yet they are up in the top 10.

spnkzss

10-02-2007, 10:47 AM

Again, back to the, "Why limit ITB and ITC to 6" wide wheels?"

gran racing

10-02-2007, 10:51 AM

Again, back to the, "Why limit ITB and ITC to 6" wide wheels?"[/b]

Nationally, how many ITB and ITC drivers are there? Why make existing drivers change rims for the sake of a few who are being moved to a class where they can be competitive? I just don't see the need to make this change right now.

spnkzss

10-02-2007, 11:04 AM

Nationally, how many ITB and ITC drivers are there? Why make existing drivers change rims for the sake of a few who are being moved to a class where they can be competitive? I just don't see the need to make this change right now.
[/b]

Rim availability. in ITB and ITC you CAN run 15" but you don't have to.

ScotMac

10-02-2007, 11:23 AM

Screwed? You've got to be kidding me. The car goes from being in a class where it has no shot to one where it can be competitive. Yeah, you really got screwed on this deal. :rolleyes:

Matt, I understand your frustration about the timing, and how you've grown to like racing with the ITA group but come on. Affect setup? So slightly change the camber settings.
[/b]

Dave, "screwed" in terms of wheels only, not whether the move was overall a good thing or not.

shwah

10-02-2007, 11:32 AM

Again, back to the, "Why limit ITB and ITC to 6" wide wheels?"
[/b]

More importantly why change the existing rule? 6" wheels are available in 13, 14 and 15" sizes. There are a lot of tires to choose from. The class successfully races on these now. I don't see a compelling reason to change.

If ITB is not 'cool' enough for some to race with, wider wheels won't change that. Let them go get beat somewhere else. :P

ScotMac

10-02-2007, 11:38 AM

Rim availability. in ITB and ITC you CAN run 15" but you don't have to.
[/b]

Exactly. Getting 14x6 or 14x5.5 in a suitable wheel for racing (less than 13lbs) is becoming very difficult, and almost impossible in a 5x100 bolt pattern. B and C cars are correctly classed on power-to-weight and handling, and there is no good reason to restrict the rim size.

Also, running those 225's on a 6" rim (as was alluded to here) can increase the tire wear, due to the much larger side wall angle, and thus increase the cost of racing.

Despite the fact that this change may have a short term negative impact to the current drivers, the real question is what is best for the future of IT. The common wheel size will make it easier and cheaper for B and C drivers to find and use suitable race wheels, thus encouraging more people to race those classes.

-Scot :)

Knestis

10-02-2007, 11:45 AM

...and almost impossible in a 5x100 bolt pattern. ...[/b]
This translates into, "please make it easier for me to be competitive." The rest is just smoke and mirrors.

Welcome to the world of competition adjustments (bleah) - whee!

K

PS - you forgot to play the safety card. ;)

ScotMac

10-02-2007, 11:59 AM

This translates into, "please make it easier for me to be competitive." The rest is just smoke and mirrors.

Welcome to the world of competition adjustments (bleah) - whee!

K

PS - you forgot to play the safety card. ;)
[/b]

This change has nothing to do w/ making me more competitive. The change is the same for everyone. It makes it easier for me to race, that is true, just like it makes it easier for others to race, but not be more competitive.

erlrich

10-02-2007, 12:37 PM

Thereby putting the burden for the change on those of us who have invested in 6" wheels. [/b]

Why make existing drivers change rims for the sake of a few who are being moved to a class where they can be competitive? [/b]

The current B cars seem to be able to get by just fine on 6" wheels.[/b]
Hmmm, maybe I'm getting old, but I seem to have missed the part where someone suggested ITB & ITC would HAVE to use 7" wheels. Kind of the same deal as the open ECU - just because it's legal doesn't mean you have to get one, right?

shwah

10-02-2007, 12:44 PM

ScotMac

10-02-2007, 12:44 PM

Why make existing drivers change rims for the sake of a few who are being moved to a class where they can be competitive?

[/b]

The ability to not have change wheels for the cars that get moved between classes is just a side benefit. The main reason for the change is the lack of availability of suitable 6" and 5.5" wheels.

shwah

10-02-2007, 12:48 PM

Hmmm, maybe I'm getting old, but I seem to have missed the part where someone suggested ITB & ITC would HAVE to use 7" wheels. Kind of the same deal as the open ECU - just because it's legal doesn't mean you have to get one, right?
[/b]
You are right. I personally would have to, because I race to win, and my car would perform better with a wider wheel. The argument was made that cars will burn up tires, or cannot get tires (or wheels) that work with the current rule.

I was simply calling BS on that theory, because lots of similar cars race on 6" wheels with all their faults now without issue.

It is a bummer to have a recently built ITA car that just got moved to ITB, and have to change wheel size. I agree. However, this is no justification to change the rule for entire classes to make it less of a bummer for that handful of affected drivers.

RacerBill

10-02-2007, 12:49 PM

Rim availability. in ITB and ITC you CAN run 15" but you don't have to.
[/b]

Spec line for the Shelby Dodge calls for 15" wheels = you do have to.

I have 18 original Shelby 15X6 wheels - but I would like to lower my unsprung weight (not to mention easing the pain of dismounting and mounting 45 lbs per wheel). I wish I had a buck for every hour I have spent trying to find ANY 15x6 light weight wheels other than custom made.

RacerBill

10-02-2007, 01:00 PM

Hmmm, maybe I'm getting old, but I seem to have missed the part where someone suggested ITB & ITC would HAVE to use 7" wheels. Kind of the same deal as the open ECU - just because it's legal doesn't mean you have to get one, right?
[/b]

Once someone near the pointy end of the field gets 'em and gets faster, everybody will feel they have to get 'em.

But you're right in that you don't "HAVE to use 7" wheels" (keep it light!)

ScotMac

10-02-2007, 01:34 PM

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3415292
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3471250
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3460478

It took me less than 3 minutes to find these 15x6, 5x100 wheels.

Kodiak, and others will make any wheel you like.

If you need 15 x 6 wheels there are lots of OEM options out there.
If you need very lightweight racing wheels, you will either stumble on a great deal, or spend the $$ required, just like the rest of us.
[/b]

As you readily admit, the OEM wheels are not suitable, due to weight. Why pay Kodiak $400-$500 for custom made wheels, when there is no reason B and C should not be allowed to get cheap (er) aftermarket wheels like these (some of which are as cheap as $175/wheel):

http://www.customwheelsdirect.com/wheels_b...il.php?id=62229 (http://www.customwheelsdirect.com/wheels_brand/wheel_detail.php?id=62229)
http://www.customwheelsdirect.com/wheels_b...il.php?id=62194 (http://www.customwheelsdirect.com/wheels_brand/wheel_detail.php?id=62194)
http://www.1010tires.com/wheel.asp?wheelbr...=TrakLite+1%2E0 (http://www.1010tires.com/wheel.asp?wheelbrand=Motegi&wheelmodel=TrakLite+1%2E0)
http://www.1010tires.com/wheel.asp?wheelbr...=TrakLite+1%2E0 (http://www.1010tires.com/wheel.asp?wheelbrand=Motegi&wheelmodel=TrakLite+1%2E0)

Thus making it easier for EVERYONE to afford a the lightweight racing wheels.

Also note, the allowing of 15" wheels did almost no good for B and C, due to the 6" and 5.5" rim sizes. Switching to 15" wheels and attempting to go w/ the same ride height requires the obvious switch to lower profile tires. However, the lower profile tires in the racings widths at the same rim width are not recommended, due to the even larger sidewall angles. ie, the 15" tires in lower profiles are only recommended for 7" or greater rims. This can be seen very easily by taking a look at the Hoosier chart below (note that the 225/50/14's are recommended for 6"-8" rims, whereas the 225/45/15's are recommended for 7"-8.5" rims). Hence, the supply is restricted even more for those looking to use 225's to ONLY 14" rims.

Chart:

http://www.hoosiertire.com/specrr.htm#SPOR...A3S04%20&R3S04) (http://www.hoosiertire.com/specrr.htm#SPORTS%20CAR%20DOT%20RADIAL%20(A3S04%20&R3S04))

Knestis

10-02-2007, 01:36 PM

This change has nothing to do w/ making me more competitive. The change is the same for everyone. It makes it easier for me to race, that is true, just like it makes it easier for others to race, but not be more competitive.
[/b]
I'm not picking on you in particular but pretty much every request for a change has everything to do with making someone more competitive:

- Cheaper = more competitive, since it will free up money to buy other performance improvements

- Longer lasting (aka "Safer") = more competitive for the same reason; money gets spent on tires rather than replacing [whatever] that has to be replaced often

- Easier = more competitive, since time saved doing X means time (and money, same thing) to do Y

- Safer = (generally) more competitive, given all kinds of pretzel logic about how the current situation is unsafe

I've been in this game a long time and there are only a few things that I have grown to REALLY count on as truisms. One is that, "If someone requests a rule change, it's sure as heck not because they think it's going to make them SLOWER."

K

ScotMac

10-02-2007, 01:42 PM

I'm not picking on you in particular but pretty much every request for a change has everything to do with making someone more competitive:

- Cheaper = more competitive, since it will free up money to buy other performance improvements

- Longer lasting (aka "Safer") = more competitive for the same reason; money gets spent on tires rather than replacing [whatever] that has to be replaced often

- Easier = more competitive, since time saved doing X means time (and money, same thing) to do Y

- Safer = (generally) more competitive, given all kinds of pretzel logic about how the current situation is unsafe

I've been in this game a long time and there are only a few things that I have grown to REALLY count on as truisms. One is that, "If someone requests a rule change, it's sure as heck not because they think it's going to make them SLOWER."

K
[/b]

Great arguments!! Yes, the change will make racing cheaper (cheaper wheels and longer lasting tires) and easier (greater availability of wheels and tires).

Knestis

10-02-2007, 01:46 PM

...Also note, the allowing of 15" wheels did almost no good for B and C, due to the 6" and 5.5" rim sizes. Switching to 15" wheels and attempting to go w/ the same ride height requires the obvious switch to lower profile tires. [/b]
The argument moves from the inaccurate proposition that I WANT to use a 15" wheel. At the point where my 14" options have completely dried up, I might change my mind but at that point, I'm arguing what's good for me - not what's good for IT.

I didn't intend for this to be about wheel sizes particularly. I was simply pointing out that Andy et al. have to err on the side of conservatism when they make decisions like this.

K

Great arguments!! Yes, the change will make racing cheaper (cheaper wheels and longer lasting tires) and easier (greater availability of wheels and tires).
[/b]

...and you completely missed my point, Scot. (Or you are being disingenuous.)

Cheaper - I get to spend dough to replace my $1800 worth of wheels, while others get to spend the same money going faster = more competitive (relatively speaking) for them

K

ScotMac

10-02-2007, 01:55 PM

The argument moves from the inaccurate proposition that I WANT to use a 15" wheel. At the point where my 14" options have completely dried up, I might change my mind but at that point, I'm arguing what's good for me - not what's good for IT.

I didn't intend for this to be about wheel sizes particularly. I was simply pointing out that Andy et al. have to err on the side of conservatism when they make decisions like this.

K
[/b]

You need to work on those reading skills!! Instead of constantly trying to find an ulterior motive in what people say, just look at *WHAT* they are saying. Do not attempt to stuff words into other people mouths. :P

I didnt say that i WANT to use 15" wheels, just that allowing the 15x7" wheels give a much greater supply of wheels and tires for the B and C racers.

...and you completely missed my point, Scot. (Or you are being disingenuous.)

Cheaper - I get to spend dough to replace my $1800 worth of wheels, while others get to spend the same money going faster = more competitive (relatively speaking) for them

K
[/b]

Yes, i was somewhat joking w/ you. But in general, the points i stated (cheaper and easier to race) are absolutely good things, and no amount of you trying to say that they are a "competitive adjustment" will change that. A "competitive adjustment" allows one competitor to become more competitive w/ another. This is the SAME for all competitors.

JoshS

10-02-2007, 01:58 PM

Yes, i was somewhat joking w/ you. But in general, the points i stated (cheaper and easier to race) are absolutely good things, and no amount of you trying to say that they are a "competitive adjustment" will change that. A "competitive adjustment" allows one competitor to become more competitive w/ another. This is the SAME for all competitors.
[/b]
It's only the same for people who need to buy wheels. For all of the people who already have wheels that they are happy with, this allowance makes things more expensive.

Always a tradeoff ...

ScotMac

10-02-2007, 02:02 PM

It's only the same for people who need to buy wheels. For all of the people who already have wheels that they are happy with, this allowance makes things more expensive.

Always a tradeoff ...
[/b]

Yes, but only in the short term. The rule itself is neutral.

BTW, Josh, good meeting you at Laguna. Did you have a problem in the Sunday race? I didn't see you for a long time, and mylaps shows you only got 3 laps.

shwah

10-02-2007, 02:12 PM

This is about a 14lb wheel, according to what I have read.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3460478

If you want 8lb wheels, expect to pay lots for them.

ScotMac - you have not yet presented a valid argument supporting the need for this change.

No wheels available - turns out not to be true.
No tires that fit - turns out not to be true (I run 205 and 225 wide tires on my 6" wheels)
No ultra light wheels available for real cheap - no kidding!

When (and I say when because I do expect we will get to this point) the availability of 6" wheels actually does dry up, I can agree that such a rule change should be considered. Any time before then, and it is not appropriate.

JoshS

10-02-2007, 02:12 PM

Yes, but only in the short term. The rule itself is neutral.
[/b]
I agree.

So how did you like Laguna Seca last weekend? Sucked for me ... I went from 7-for-7 to 7-for-9 this season.

ScotMac

10-02-2007, 02:29 PM

I agree.

So how did you like Laguna Seca last weekend? Sucked for me ... I went from 7-for-7 to 7-for-9 this season.
[/b]

Right. I saw that your car was very competitive, but did you have problem on Sunday?

It started very bad for me (sound problems, and then my exhaust got ripped off by the pea gravel), but when i was finally able to run and get used to the track (first time on it), i was able to get my time from a horrendous 2:09 down to a respectable 1:58. Hope to get down to 1:56 or so, and thus be competitive w/ the other ITB cars.

This is about a 14lb wheel, according to what I have read.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3460478

If you want 8lb wheels, expect to pay lots for them.
ScotMac - you have not yet presented a valid argument supporting the need for this change.

No wheels available - turns out not to be true.
No tires that fit - turns out not to be true (I run 205 and 225 wide tires on my 6" wheels)
No ultra light wheels available for real cheap - no kidding!

When (and I say when because I do expect we will get to this point) the availability of 6" wheels actually does dry up, I can agree that such a rule change should be considered. Any time before then, and it is not appropriate.
[/b]

I never said that the OEM wheels aren't available, just that they are not acceptable. The aftermarket wheels i listed are 10-11lbs, and thus close to the ultraexpensive 8lb kodiaks.

Yes, i bet you run those 225's on 14x6" wheels. 225/45's on 15x6's are not recommended, nor a good idea, but are fine on 15x7's, due to the reduced sidewall angel. ie, the 7" rims will open up more options for both wheels and tires.

As I said (and i did make my point), cheaper and easier to race, along w/ the other side benefits i mentioned.

Scot :)

shwah

10-02-2007, 02:56 PM

Actually I run 205 on the 14s, but 205 or 225 on the 13s. No it is not recommended, but neither are lots of things I do to my race car.

edit - I was just looking for an argument for why what we have does not work, NOT an argument for why a change would work better for you.

gran racing

10-02-2007, 03:38 PM

Hmmm, maybe I'm getting old, but I seem to have missed the part where someone suggested ITB & ITC would HAVE to use 7" wheels.[/b]

Would people HAVE to use 7” rims? No, but I’m sure we’ll agree there is a competitive advantage of doing so therefore those people who want to remain at the pointy end of the field would need to do so. In the end, I would feel it to be necessary just like getting a IT prepped engine built. An extreme of this, let’s say cam rules open up. Do you HAVE to get modded cams? Just saying, or whatever that quote Greg uses from Scott G. is. LOL

As you readily admit, the OEM wheels are not suitable, due to weight.[/b]

I never said that the OEM wheels aren't available, just that they are not acceptable.[/b]

Hmmm, a car can run in a class where it has absolutely no shot at being a winning car in a competitive region to a class where it could. Even using the absolutely cheapest, junk yard rims, by being moved into a class where the car is much more competitive you just gained quite a bit. That seems pretty cool to me (and did when my Prelude was moved from ITA > ITB).

Not that it’s critical to this debate, but for years I used 225/45 Hoosiers on 13x5.5 rims and was never concerned about safety with doing so. When I saw that I could get 9.3 lb 14 x 6 rims for $120 and pick them up at just about any wheel shop, I couldn’t resist.

ScotMac

10-02-2007, 05:02 PM

Not that it’s critical to this debate, but for years I used 225/45 Hoosiers on 13x5.5 rims and was never concerned about safety with doing so. When I saw that I could get 9.3 lb 14 x 6 rims for $120 and pick them up at just about any wheel shop, I couldn’t resist.

[/b]

I agree, i don't think it is a safety issue w/ running the 225/45's on 13x5.5 rims. Performance and wear on the shoulder issue could be a different story.

Where can i get a set of those 9.3lb 14x6 rims in a 5x100 pattern for $120, Dave??!!?? Please let me know!!

Actually I run 205 on the 14s, but 205 or 225 on the 13s. No it is not recommended, but neither are lots of things I do to my race car.

edit - I was just looking for an argument for why what we have does not work, NOT an argument for why a change would work better for you.
[/b]

Right, it is easier to run the 225's on the 13's, since you can do a higher/larger profile for the same ride height, and thus make the side wall angle less extreme. 225's on the 15's, if you want the same ride height is a whole different ballgame. ie, the 7" rims will not only allow more overall wheel choices, they will also allow B and C to better take advantage of the 15" rim rule change.

Other than the issue w/ people having previously bought 5.6"/6" rims, i see no real negative to the change, and some obvious positives.

Note, i just bought some 14x6" spinwerkes wheels myself, which go for $208/wheel.

Knestis

10-02-2007, 05:18 PM

shwah

10-02-2007, 05:38 PM

I agree, i don't think it is a safety issue w/ running the 225/45's on 13x5.5 rims. Performance and wear on the shoulder issue could be a different story.

Where can i get a set of those 9.3lb 14x6 rims in a 5x100 pattern for $120, Dave??!!?? Please let me know!!
Right, it is easier to run the 225's on the 13's, since you can do a higher/larger profile for the same ride height, and thus make the side wall angle less extreme. 225's on the 15's, if you want the same ride height is a whole different ballgame. ie, the 7" rims will not only allow more overall wheel choices, they will also allow B and C to better take advantage of the 15" rim rule change.

Other than the issue w/ people having previously bought 5.6"/6" rims, i see no real negative to the change, and some obvious positives.

Note, i just bought some 14x6" spinwerkes wheels myself, which go for $208/wheel.
[/b]
Just put a set of 225/45 - 13 on my 13x6 wheels. Not recommended by Hoosier, but I have my reasons. I think this is pretty similar to what you are talking about with 15s.

I guess this is where our opinions differ. You say that if there is no negative, and/or a positive to make a change it should be done (of course you forget to note that there is a negative to those that were doing fine and must now make changes). I say that if you cannot show me how the current rule is failing us, there is no compelling reason to make a change, even if you think there are no negatives.

Matt Rowe

10-02-2007, 05:46 PM

Wow an evening of sleep and a busy day of work and so many things to comment on.

The weight reduction, if achievable should help the tire problem more than the 6” wheels will hurt.[/b]
Uh, the weight is exactly the same. So the narrower wheel will hurt. Trust me I first started on 6" wheels and the setup was much different. Although a weight reduction would have been nice, I could have gotten the car down into the 2200's.

The current B cars seem to be able to get by just fine on 6" wheels. Even cars with similar specs to the Shelby.[/b]
The current ITB charger runs 110 lbs lighter. And I didn't see anything else currently competitive in ITB with a spec weigth greater than 2400 with the possible exception of the Audi's. I could be missing more cars but this is certainly on the high end of common ITB cars especially for a FWD car with struts. Interestingly it will also be among only a few oddball cars in ITB with 15" wheels. Maybe we should just allow 7" wide wheels for all of the 15's?

Matt, I understand your frustration about the timing, and how you've grown to like racing with the ITA group but come on. Affect setup? So slightly change the camber settings.
[/b]
I've run 6" wheels before and the changes are more than just camber. Because the sidewall deflection changes I had to retune spring rates. Then once the spring rates were different the shocks were revalved. Then you retweak the alignement settings because the suspension movement is changed again. Then you start the loop over again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

In reality every car's setup is the sum of it's parts and changing one item has an effect. The degree of the effect varies but the more time spent on the setup (closer to optimal) the more likely a change is going to a significant impact. After going through multiple sets of springs front and rear and some lengthy time spent on shock valving forgive me if I'm not eager to start down that road again. If I'm going to do it I'll start with a different car. Oh wait, that's what I decided to do before this even came up. :D

Finally, as much as I would like 7" wheels for this car in ITB I have strong reservations about either making the allowance for specific carsor opening it up to the entire class. I know it will impact all the current ITB owners with 6" wheels just to find out if there is an advantage and there just isn't enough justification in my mind on the availability of 6" wide wheels to force everyone to live with the change. That being said, it does suck for some people, especially when it wasn't an issue when they choose the car but in my mind I can't justify the rule change to the class overall.

BlueStreak

10-02-2007, 05:53 PM

New idea. Everyone in ITB should be required to run a MkIII Golf.

- Easier - parts are affordable and available, large knowledge base built up from earlier generation VWs that translates directly to this model, compared to less common options (e.g., Honda Prelude, Chrysler Shelby); opportunity to share spares at events

- Better competition - everyone running the same chassis would take make/model out of the equation and increase the quality of racing

- Simpler rules enforcement/compliance - everyone would know the cars so be able to better police the competition

- More economical - VW offers a contingency ($150 to win a Regional, thank you) so net costs go down; cheaper to develop given growing shared knowledge base; potential for group buy discounts on parts

- Safer - bumpers are all at the same height, decreasing chance of damage or injury

And hey - it's NEUTRAL

K
[/b]

I know this was tongue in cheek - and this is WAY off topic - but if VW really wants to learn something about motorsports marketing, they should check out SpecMiata, it has been fairly successful ;)

If VW put a little weight behind assisting in the development of SpecGolf (or even SpecRabbit, since that name is back) I bet you it would do well. I'm not kidding myself, it would not do as well as SpecMiata (Miata's are just better race cars), BUT, if it achieved one tenth of the popularity of SpecMiata, SpecGolf
would be more successful than a lot of current classes. (remember the original GTI Cup?)

lateapex911

10-02-2007, 06:22 PM

ITAC: Hey Bob, your car just got moved to ITB at the same weight.
Bob: Hey great...wait a minute..that means I need new wheels. That sucks. Hey, I think you should make the rule the same for all the classes.
ITAC: You mean move ITB and ITC up to ITA and ITS widths? So you don't have to buy wheels?
Bob; Ummm yeah, but listen, those wider wheels are easier to find, so really it benefits EVERYbody..
ITAC: Everybody except all the people already in ITB and ITC who already own hundreds and hundreds of wheels..
Bob: Well they don't HAVE to buy wider wheels, only if they want to..
ITAC: Want to what, keep up?

To me, this one's obvious....

ScotMac

10-02-2007, 07:16 PM

Again, the future ability of cars to more easily swap classes, because of like wheels, is not the impetus for doing this, just a side benefit. And yes, that benefit is strongly offset by the current issue of people who have bought 6"/5.5" rims. That is given.

The reason for the change is instead the expanded availability of suitable racing wheels and tires for the 7" rims. This is a definitely a future and new racer oriented proposal, since the supply will only get worse, and because the new racers have not yet bought wheels.

Obviously there will be a lot of dissension from the existing B and C drivers that have bought 6"/5.5" rims, as we have seen here. But is that a strong enough argument to override the future benefits of greater supply of rims for B and C at lower prices and more tire options? That is the question that the ITAC must decide. It is obviously a tradeoff, and all the counter arguments here are not based on what is best for the future of the classes, but what is best for some of the existing drivers.

As i have said, i have just bought 14x6" wheels, but i still believe this change is the correct direction for the future of IT.

shwah

10-02-2007, 08:42 PM

I would make the same arguments if I ran ITS. I just would not have as much real world experience with the issue to support the arguments.

Z3_GoCar

10-02-2007, 10:26 PM

erlrich

10-03-2007, 12:31 AM

Matt - FWIW, I can pretty much assure you that none of your fellow MARRS drivers are going to give a s&!t what size rims you're using. When you get to the ARRC...well, then you can worry. And I just hope the next car you're thinking about is an A car - we would really hate to loose you to the dark side :)

JLawton

10-03-2007, 06:54 AM

I just want to go on record that I am happy with my car and where it's classed.

I'm happy with the weight it's at.
I'm happy with the power it makes.
I'm happy with the size wheels I use.
I'm happy with how competitive it is.
I'm happy with the ECU.
I'm happy it has a washer bottle.
I'm happy it doesn't have a big ass wing on the trunk.

And you know why I'm happy about it all?? Because I made the decision to run this car!! All you guys who most have been forced to run the cars you do (because you all sound so unhappy with your cars) may want to think about selling them and buying a car that will make you happy.

Of course, 90% of those guys will get into any car and still not be happy............Because (and this may come as a little surprise) we're not all F1 caliber and still won't win. (I know, I know, you are the exception in SCCA and could run F1 if given the chance.....)

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Maybe we should all work on driver developement??

There's a novel idea................

As Ryana (sp?) says..............

Wow, I feel much better! :)

spnkzss

10-03-2007, 07:58 AM

I'm not picking on you in particular but pretty much every request for a change has everything to do with making someone more competitive:

- Cheaper = more competitive, since it will free up money to buy other performance improvements

- Longer lasting (aka "Safer") = more competitive for the same reason; money gets spent on tires rather than replacing [whatever] that has to be replaced often

- Easier = more competitive, since time saved doing X means time (and money, same thing) to do Y

- Safer = (generally) more competitive, given all kinds of pretzel logic about how the current situation is unsafe

I've been in this game a long time and there are only a few things that I have grown to REALLY count on as truisms. One is that, "If someone requests a rule change, it's sure as heck not because they think it's going to make them SLOWER."

K
[/b]

What about the people like me that is leaving ITC, going to ITA, and STILL think the 6" limitation should be dropped? :)

gran racing

10-03-2007, 08:18 AM

And I didn't see anything else currently competitive in ITB with a spec weigth greater than 2400 with the possible exception of the Audi's.[/b]

You forgot about the two different Accords that won the ARRC the past two years. Hey Jeff, my Prelude is 2450 and I too am very happy with my car (which is fairly competitive). :D

Maybe we should all work on driver developement??[/b]

So when are YOU going to get some driver coaching? It sure helped me.

rlward

10-03-2007, 10:43 AM

I kind of get a kick out of Roger's response. No matter what change is made, it will create a problem for somebody.

K
[/b]
The points are: Did a shelby driver request the change? Why is the process so secretive?
Why so late in the season? Where was the discussion? If the board had done their homework, I think all the drivers would have been polled, no one contacted me. We already have spec miata, what are we going to have now, ITmAiata? Reduction in weight would have been a better choice.
RW

1stGenBoy

10-03-2007, 12:39 PM

The points are: Did a shelby driver request the change?

Yup, sure did

Why is the process so secretive?

??? It was published in Sportscar, more than once and on this site.

Why so late in the season?

Letters written in May/June, discussed by the ITAC at their next meeting, Tabled for more information and review. Sent to the CRB then to the BOD. This does not happen in 30 days more like 3-4 months.

Where was the discussion?

What discussion? A letter was recieved from a competitor and reviewed and acted upon.

If the board had done their homework, I think all the drivers would have been polled, no one contacted me.

It was in Fastrack for member comment

We already have spec miata, what are we going to have now, ITmAiata? Reduction in weight would have been a better choice.
RW

You can write a letter to the CRB and ITAC asking for a review of this. Unless you contact them nothing will happen.
[/b]

JamesB

10-03-2007, 12:41 PM

In MARRS alone we have the following OVER 2400#.

Alfa Romeo GTV - 2520
Dodge Daytona - 2630!
Toyota FX14 - 2445
Volvo 142 - 2640!!
Volvo 242 - 2780!!!

And

Plymoth Fire arrow is close at 2360

So the shelby at 2430 I just cannot see how you can even attempt to justfy the need for 7" wide wheels based on safety for running that weight.

However, all the retuning to go to a 6" wide wheel that Matt Rowe has pointed out will be required and as much as it stinks, I dont think your going to loose too much lap time once you readjust the cars suspension.

Dave Ebersole

10-03-2007, 02:02 PM

In MARRS alone we have the following OVER 2400#.

Alfa Romeo GTV - 2520
Dodge Daytona - 2630!
Toyota FX14 - 2445
Volvo 142 - 2640!!
Volvo 242 - 2780!!!
And

Plymoth Fire arrow is close at 2360
So the shelby at 2430 I just cannot see how you can even attempt to justfy the need for 7" wide wheels based on safety for running that weight.

However, all the retuning to go to a 6" wide wheel that Matt Rowe has pointed out will be required and as much as it stinks, I dont think your going to loose too much lap time once you readjust the cars suspension.
[/b]

The poor Alfa and Volvo were QUITE successful in ITB in MARRS this season too.

JamesB

10-03-2007, 03:07 PM

Tell me about it dave. Here I am celebrating getting my 'light' 2280# VW finally down into the low 34's and high 33's (consistently.) Still have a few seconds to find to the front of the pack. And stop qualifying behind the ITC leaders so I don't watch you eventually dissapear since trying to pass the 4 of them was NOT an option though I had one chance when they all blocked each other to attempt to squeeze through but decided id rather just video them and stick to their tails and learn a trick or 5.

jjjanos

10-03-2007, 03:10 PM

I'm soooo confused....

Are the 6 inch racing rims scarce or not?

What is the basis for the class-specific limitation on rim width? i.e. We've got a car that was ITA using 7 inch rims who is now required to puchase 6 inch rims to go racing. Why wasn't 9.1.3.D.7.a.6 changed to read "Maximum allowable rim widths: ITR - 8.5 inches, classes ITS and ITA - seven (7) inches; classes ITB and ITC - six (6) inches except as modified on a cars spec line.

If there is concern about the extra performance this former ITA car will have, then add weight to the bloody thing to negate that performance advantage.

Please show me the carved tablets that proclaim "Thou shalt not suffer rims wider than 6 inches in ITB for it is an abomination before the Racing Gods."

Knestis

10-03-2007, 03:50 PM

...because there is value to NOT changing things unless they really need to be changed - unless there is a compelling argument to do so, for the good of the category.

And, I keep referring to competition adjustments (bleah) but it's because there are a lot of dimensions or attributes to that practice, as it's played out in Production classes, for example. One of the fundamental tenets of IT is that we don't have a bunch of make/model-specific specifications, which is the logical product - and a condition that enables - drivers to petition for individual help for their cars.

K

Greg Krom

10-03-2007, 04:12 PM

Shouldn't the Omni GLH be moved to ITB at the same time as the Shelby Charger? I can't think of any differences between the two vehicles that would justify separate classing.

BlueStreak

10-03-2007, 05:14 PM

Shouldn't the Omni GLH be moved to ITB at the same time as the Shelby Charger? I can't think of any differences between the two vehicles that would justify separate classing.
[/b]

Having owned and raced turbo versions of both (many years ago), I would say the Omni would have to move to ITB lighter than the Charger due to the Charger's slight aero advantage.

That said, you're not going to see a bunch of either of these, they are harder to find these days than Rabbits!

Matt Rowe

10-03-2007, 06:18 PM

So the shelby at 2430 I just cannot see how you can even attempt to justfy the need for 7" wide wheels based on safety for running that weight.

However, all the retuning to go to a 6" wide wheel that Matt Rowe has pointed out will be required and as much as it stinks, I dont think your going to loose too much lap time once you readjust the cars suspension.
[/b]
Give me some credit James, I never once brought up safety. That would be a red herring. :D

I just said it's going to be harder on the tires even at the same weight and will require more than just the cost of a new set of wheels to get it optimized. There is significant effort in retuning the car and while the net effect will be small until that retuning gets done the car won't be all that it can be. So from my perspective this change sucks, I would have rather stayed in ITA with a weight reduction to fit the process.

Matt - FWIW, I can pretty much assure you that none of your fellow MARRS drivers are going to give a s&!t what size rims you're using. When you get to the ARRC...well, then you can worry. And I just hope the next car you're thinking about is an A car - we would really hate to loose you to the dark side :)
[/b]
Don't worry Earl, I honestly can't imagine a better class to be in right now than ITA (at least on the east coast) which is why I already have another car picked out. The major work will start in November. That gives me all of this month to plan the bank robbery to finance it. :rolleyes:

gran racing

10-03-2007, 06:31 PM

There is significant effort in retuning the car and while the net effect will be small until that retuning gets done the car won't be all that it can be. [/b]

Matt, this is going to come off more harsh over the net than it would over a couple of beers. People who say that it's going to take retuning, different spring rates, give me a break. Tune all you want in the higher class and the car still is uncompetitve. If you do think this type of tuning is absolutely necessary, it shouldn't be a problem because you already have numerous spring rates since you need to change these from track to track using that theory. In the new class, having a rim 1" narrower is not going to be the cause of that particular driver not running up front in Club Racing.

That's it! I'm changing my signature. :P

tom91ita

10-03-2007, 06:42 PM

i go back and forth from 7" rims to 6" rims for Honda Challenge and SCCA and the only adjustment is for the "Driven to Conform" Toy Tires used in HC.

Matt Rowe

10-03-2007, 07:43 PM

Matt, this is going to come off more harsh over the net than it would over a couple of beers. People who say that it's going to take retuning, different spring rates, give me a break. Tune all you want in the higher class and the car still is uncompetitve. If you do think this type of tuning is absolutely necessary, it shouldn't be a problem because you already have numerous spring rates since you need to change these from track to track using that theory. In the new class, having a rim 1" narrower is not going to be the cause of that particular driver not running up front in Club Racing.

That's it! I'm changing my signature. :P
[/b]
You're right Dave that does sound awfully harsh. Good thing I never listen to anything you say!

(That was a joke also. :P )

Don't get me wrong, we are talking about small margins, but we also tell people that only have .020" over pistons and not .040" that they haven't fully developed their car. If the car isn't winning in ITB no one is going to have any sympathy for someone that hasn't changed their setup after changing wheel sizes. So now we are back to test days, part swapping, and so on. That's more than just the cost of a set of wheels.

Maybe I'm just sensitive because a couple of years ago I got told to live with it because there wasn't enough interest in my car to spend the time running it through the process. And my car certainly wasn't the only one skipped over so at the time I said this was going to create ill will and inconvience people later. Now I'm being told to live with it, stop complaining and be thankful it was finally looked at. Meanwhile the MR2's and RX-7's have been given endless debate and get to stay in ITA at a (unattainablly?) low weight because some of them have requested that option. It begs the question why them and not this car?

Knestis

10-03-2007, 09:20 PM

... a couple of years ago I got told to live with it because there wasn't enough interest in my car to spend the time running it through the process. And my car certainly wasn't the only one skipped over so at the time I said this was going to create ill will and inconvience people later. ...[/b]
I'm not entirely confident that's exactly how it went down. I'm a critical as the next guy - more so maybe, if you ask Andy and the others - when I think the ITAC is being inconsistent but I think it might be more a case of dealing with the more immediately wrong listings first. They have a limited amount of time and resources to put into the decisions they have to make, and when the process was new (the Great Realignment) there were some really huge mistakes that needed to be rectified first - both in terms of the size of the miss and/or the number of drivers impacted. It was ALWAYS explained clearly, I think, that they would revisit those that were potentially still not right but were closer, if and when requests came in. One did, they did, and here we are.

...Meanwhile the MR2's and RX-7's have been given endless debate and get to stay in ITA at a (unattainablly?) low weight because some of them have requested that option. It begs the question why them and not this car?[/b]
I'm going to bet it's because they ran the numbers and the Shelby's not as close an issue as is the MR2. And/or they don't have the minimum weight cage tube rule to cope with.

K

Bill Miller

10-04-2007, 05:00 AM

110hp, FWD and struts. That ain't no ITA car. Come on.
[/b]

Andy,

You could make the same case that 90hp, FWD, and struts is no ITB car! ;)

jjjanos

10-04-2007, 07:23 AM

...because there is value to NOT changing things unless they really need to be changed - unless there is a compelling argument to do so, for the good of the category.[/b]

Then the basis of your objection already has been undermined as I doubt a convincing case could be made that moving this car from ITA to ITB is for the good of the category.

If, however, one accepts moving this car is for the good of the category since it will preserve the existing cars as entrants and may cause additional cars of this type to be built, the case for allowing the larger rims in this instance is strengthed. Moving the car w/o adjusting rim sizes undercuts the first reason for moving the car, i.e. preserving current entrants/cars.

One of the fundamental tenets of IT is that we don't have a bunch of make/model-specific specifications, which is the logical product - and a condition that enables - drivers to petition for individual help for their cars.[/b]

However, we already have at least one make/model-specific specification which is entirely competition based - minimum weight. Presumably the CB does not apply the Circumcision Rule in setting minimum weight - 10% of the top for a V6, 5% of the top for warp-drive, 5.5% of the top for jet-pack,....... but adjusts it based on an attempt to level competition.

Simply moving this car is a competition adjustment. So, since we've already decided to lose our virginity, shouldn't we jump in with both heels up and enjoy it?

Let people ask for rim size adjustments when their cars aren't being moved - the CB can continue to tell them to sod off.

Knestis

10-04-2007, 09:16 AM

...we already have at least one make/model-specific specification which is entirely competition based - minimum weight. [/b]

Indeed. And that should be THE make/model-specific spec. I'd differ with the assumption that it's "competition-based" (suggesting it is based on competitiveness. It is adjusted in anticipation of maintaining a certain level of competitiveness but the point at which we do things the other way 'round, we're truly in it up to our heels.

Simply moving this car is a competition adjustment. [/b]

Mostly wrong. This action lacks some important substantive attributes of competition adjustments (bleah) as they get played out in other categories, and that we should try very hard to avoid in IT.

And I have to believe that any attempt to make listings more consistent - within and among IT classes - is good for the health of the category as a whole.

K

jjjanos

10-04-2007, 10:04 AM

Simply moving this car is a competition adjustment. So, since we've already decided to lose our virginity, shouldn't we jump in with both heels up and enjoy it?[/b]

Mostly wrong. This action lacks some important substantive attributes of competition adjustments (bleah) as they get played out in other categories, and that we should try very hard to avoid in IT.[/b]

Oh no! We've already determined the lady is for hire. At this point, all we are doing is haggling over price and whether she'll throw in a Hong Kong Hiccup on the house.

1. Every classification of a car involves a competition adjustment, otherwise the minimum weight we would have to run would be the curb weight. Case in point - first generation CRX in ITC: 1955 lbs. CRX Si in ITB: 2130. (difference: 175lbs) Curb weight Dx/HF: 1819lb Si: 1890lb. (Source (http://kumo.swcp.com/synth/crx/specs.html)). No adjustments would suggest that the difference in weight - 71lbs - should be maintained in the minimum weights. Either the C car should weigh 2059lbs or the B car should weigh 2026lbs. Ergo, the minimum weights are competition adjustments.

2. Changing a class for a model is an admission that the original classification was wrong and is done entirely for competition adjustment reasons. I.e. that '85 CRX Dx really isn't an ITS car. It needs to go somewhere else.

3. Changing weights, either in isolation or in conjunction with moving the car's class is an EVEN bigger competition adjustment.

4. I see nothing inconsistent with class philosophy with relaxing the strict prohibitions of 9.1.3.D.7.a.6.

5. In fact, 9.1.3.D.7.a.6 is, itself, a violation of the IT class philosophy. It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car. Any change from stock rim size should be prohibited unless a case can be made that running the stock rim size is unsafe and if this is indeed the case, the stock rim size itself should be prohibited as being unsafe for competition. We have CRB members participating here - what is the justification for 9.1.3.D.7.a.6? Why cannot I use any rim size I wish that fits on my car provided that the tires do not extend beyond the horizontal plane of my fenders?

And I have to believe that any attempt to make listings more consistent - within and among IT classes - is good for the health of the category as a whole.
[/b]

It is unclear what you mean by consistent within and among IT classes. As it stands now, 9.1.3.D.7.a.6 simply is a means of reducing redundancy on the specification line. In its absence, the NOTES: column would simply repeat - maximum rim width 6", maximum rim width 6", maximum rim width 6".....

Simply changing one of those implied restrictions to maximum rim width 7" (particularly because the people who have been running that car already HAVE those rims) is not an inconsistency.

I have yet to hear a valid reason why forcing these drivers to purchase new wheels is good for IT. I have yet to hear a valid reason why letting these drivers use their current wheels is bad for IT.

I recognize the nose-of-the-camel argument and I reject it. The fact that this car has moved classes and had its weight adjusted already means that, not only is the nose in the tent, the entire head is too.

AntonioGG

10-04-2007, 10:19 AM

ScotMac

10-04-2007, 10:34 AM

Is it 14X6 in 5X100 pattern you guys are looking for?

How's 12lbs for $90 sound? Good for 5X114.3 too.

http://www.nlmotoring.com/motegi-rt5-silve...26bba8234b1a09d (http://www.nlmotoring.com/motegi-rt5-silver-14x6-5x1001143-p-10713.html?zenid=060b9144385f1173426bba8234b1a09d)
[/b]

That is old stock that they just haven't removed from their website. Try purchasing it, or call American Racing/Motegi, and you will find it is not made anymore. I did a very thorough search, and found exactly one source below 12lbs and below $400. That is unacceptable.

You can see in this thread where i discuss exactly those wheels, and their lack of availability:

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...12532&hl=motegi (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12532&hl=motegi)

JamesB

10-04-2007, 10:53 AM

Matt - I was not saying you are the one pulling the safety issue out. Others are and they can argue till they are blue in the face, scroll back up and look a the weights of cars that are even heavier on the same restriction of rim width and they manage their tires quite well. Two of the heaviest are always in the pointy end of the field. However, you already knew it wasnt going to be competitive or you would not have changed cars.

As for trying to call this a competition adjustment and trying to open things up for help me adjustements like prod I dont think so. They took their time and did the research. From what I can tell ther car was always miss classed and everyone had lots of time to comment on it since the recomendation to BoD was published in fastrack before approved by the BoD.

Knestis

10-04-2007, 12:39 PM

...I recognize the nose-of-the-camel argument and I reject it. ...[/b]
Then you get the IT that you deserve.

You don't buy my definition of "competition adjustment" (bleah!). I think it's because you don't understand the history or implications - or you reject those too, which is your right - but you MAYBE want to check with the ITAC to see if their definition is closer to how you operationalize the term, or to how I do.

I've committed to not losing any more sleep, if the majority of IT entrants decide that they want to sleep with those camels (or hiccup, or whatever tortured metaphor you choose) but just be sure you'll be happy about the consequences the next morning.

K

jjjanos

10-04-2007, 02:39 PM

Then you get the IT that you deserve.
[/b]

Pause awhile and let my counsel sway you in this case.

The specified minimum weights are competition adjustments - period. There are simpy viewed as an acceptable form of adjustment despite being very model specific. The ITAC might not view it as a competition adjustment but

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

DavidM

10-04-2007, 03:58 PM

Pause awhile and let my counsel sway you in this case.

The specified minimum weights are competition adjustments - period. There are simpy viewed as an acceptable form of adjustment despite being very model specific. The ITAC might not view it as a competition adjustment but

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
[/b]

Blasphemy.

Andy Bettencourt

10-04-2007, 04:08 PM

jjjanos

10-04-2007, 05:44 PM

My definition of competition adjustments from SCCA Club racings perspective is something like this:

'A post-classification change in a models spec (min weight, engine restriction, etc) for the specific purpose of changing it's on-track competitiveness'

The rest is just word-play. Min weights are 'competition setters'. Adjustments tweak what is already done. Now that most of the cars in IT are through the process and the 'set it' is done...we are in 'forget it' mode.
[/b]

Andy,

We'll just have to disagree on whether there is a difference between a competition setter and a competition adjustment.

However, since you are here.... what is the rational behind 9.1.3.D.7.a.6, both in terms of it's creation and it's continuation when classifying new/reclassifying old vehicles?

lateapex911

10-04-2007, 06:21 PM

Well, I can't speak for the whole ITAC, but my philosophy aligns with Andy's. How silly would it be to set weights in a vacuum, without trying to create some semblence of equality? Why bother to race if there will be one car that is the fastest? Really! We could have one class and call it "Spec most expensive" or something.

OF COURSE we class cars in such a way as to create some form of parity! However, and this is important, the IT method is baeed on the physical attributes of the cars, not on how fast they went at the Ruboffs (thanks Kirk) last year.

THAT is a HUGE difference, and I contend that that difference means the camels nose is NOT in the tent.

A competition adjustment is an adjustment of a car based on it's lack, or excessive, competiveness.

Oh...and I love it when I have to look something up to satisfy a query.

JoshS

10-04-2007, 06:29 PM

Oh...and I love it when I have to look something up to satisfy a query.
[/b]

Me too ... but I looked it up.

"Maximum allowable rim widths: ITR - 8.5 inches, classes
ITS and ITA - seven (7) inches; classes ITB and ITC - six
(6) inches."

rcc85

10-04-2007, 07:02 PM

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think the Shelby Charger will be very competitive in ITB. A bit more power and a bit more weight than the Plymouth TC3 (and that has proven to be a winner in MARRS).

Now, I just need to talk to somebody about getting the minimum weight lowered on the Daytona!!

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

Bill Miller

10-04-2007, 07:24 PM

A competition adjustment is an adjustment of a car based on it's lack, or excessive, competiveness.

[/b]

Which is exactly what moving a car from one class to another is (even says so right in the ITCS). One of the problems I see here was the use of 'weasel words' from the outset. Everyone was so worried about calling PCA's comp. adjustments, that they made up all kinds of rationale as to why they weren't.

As far as the argument that letting ITB and ITC run 7" wheels will cost everyone more money, what do you think allowing an open ECU is going to do? You've taken something that was primarily something that those w/ really deep pockets dabbled in, and are proposing to make it more accessible (read: less costly) to more people. Now you'll HAVE to pony up the money for it.

I'll throw this out as a compromise solution. Let any car that gets moved from ITA to ITB run the 7" wheels w/ a weight penalty. The classification process should be able to put a number on what 7" wheels are worth over 6" wheels. Not sure if it should be a fixed number (e.g. 50#), or it should be a percentage of the cars spec weight. Sure doesn't seem that hard. Heck, you could give any ITB and ITC car that option.

I know that this will make some people cringe (Kirk, are you out there?), but look at it like Prod does w/ their alternate trannys. Sure would make it less painful on anyone moving from ITA to ITB.

Discuss.

lateapex911

10-04-2007, 08:05 PM

Which is exactly what moving a car from one class to another is (even says so right in the ITCS).
[/b]
No. Moving the Borgward down a class is only a comp adjustment if it's being done because the car isn't competitive. In this case, a request was made to look closely at the cars numbers. It was researched, and found to be a car that fit the process in ITB, not ITA. That is a reclass based on numbers, not a comp adjustment.

As far as the argument that letting ITB and ITC run 7" wheels will cost everyone more money, what do you think allowing an open ECU is going to do? You've taken something that was primarily something that those w/ really deep pockets dabbled in, and are proposing to make it more accessible (read: less costly) to more people. Now you'll HAVE to pony up the money for it.[/b]

Again, not at all. There are plenty of cars that make very close to their potential power with a chip swap. Some have found that they have tried all sorts of ECUs (just for research) and the factory solution works best. So, it is clearly NOT a case of everybody having to add an open ECU.

(And interestingly, I've gotten letters from people that are remorseful this has taken so long, as they've spent buckets of money developing chips and such, and could have been money ahead if the rule had passed much sooner.)

Knestis

10-04-2007, 08:48 PM

...I know that this will make some people cringe (Kirk, are you out there?), but look at it like Prod does w/ their alternate trannys. Sure would make it less painful on anyone moving from ITA to ITB.[/b]
If I wanted to devote the energy, I'd be cringing. And "like Prod does w/their alternate transmissions" is PRECISELY the best argument for NOT doing it, by my way of thinking. Suffice to say - ugh.

Moving the Borgward down a class is only a comp adjustment if it's being done because the car isn't competitive. In this case, a request was made to look closely at the cars numbers. ...[/b]
THANK YOU, Jake! This is an important distinction, that is completely lost on Mr. Janos: If the adjustment is made BASED ON on-track performance, it's a performance adjustment (bleah). If it's INTENDED TO INFLUENCE on-track performance, it's an entirely different kettle of fish - Andy's coining of the term "competition setter" isn't very far off, even if he did make it up at 4:07pm this afternoon. :)

The distinction - again, in case you haven't been tuned in to my ramblings here for the last 7 years - is in the the basis on which the decision is made. While the motivation for the initial request to re-examine the Shelby might have been that its owner was struggling to be competitive (the car "wasn't competitive" in A), the method by which the actual adjustment was determined was based on the physical attributes of the car. This is a crucial difference.

It IS also pertinent that the only variable being manipulated is the weight. This takes variables out of the muddle.

The current process is about 90% in the light of day, too. This keeps (helps keep? should keep?) the process above board and responsive to the math, rather than responsive to back-room dealings or special considerations. This is a GOOD THING. There are some fudge factors that I have concerns about but they generally bear on outliers and oddballs, so don't have the potential for huge negative impact if they are off.

K

jjjanos

10-04-2007, 08:59 PM

No. Moving the Borgward down a class is only a comp adjustment if it's being done because the car isn't competitive. In this case, a request was made to look closely at the cars numbers. It was researched, and found to be a car that fit the process in ITB, not ITA. That is a reclass based on numbers, not a comp adjustment.[/b]

If you are saying that car is going to be moved from A to B because its performance characteristics don't justify it being in A (where it is NOT competitive) to moving it to B (where it might be), well that's a readjustment based on whether the car is competitive and hence a competition adjustment.

Even in the case where a brand new car gets put in ITReallyFast and the CB realizes the car should have been classified in ITSlowasabrick, the move is still done for competition reasons.

The CB doesn't allow the fancy prod alterations into IT. Cool. Great. I still haven't heard a valid reason to deny allowing the use of larger wheels on cars in cases where CRB adjustments result in the requirement to purchase new wheels or not race. What I have heard are reasons based on an appeal to probability (if we allow it now, there is a chance that everyone will get specific changes and therefore they will get these changes), a false dilemma (either this car runs 6" wheels or there will be willy-nilly changes everywhere), the slippery slope (once it starts, it never will end) and association (changes like this occur in prod, therefore they will happen in IT if this is allowed) - these are all logic fallacies.

And it's all based on some as yet unjustified and perhaps unjustifiable rule that cars cannot run rims wider than 6"!

There are three outcomes here:
1. You trust the decisions makers when it comes to preventing willy-nilly changes just because - in which case this change means nothing.
2. You don't trust the decision makers when it comes to preventing these changes - in which case, why provide input because you don't trust 'em.
or
3. You trust them to make sensible decisions that aren't going to FUBAR IT - in which case, someone please tell me why the owners of these cars need to go out and purchase new wheels when slapping some weight on the damn car as part of reclassification will negate the advantage of larger wheels. It's absolutely no different than what they did when classifying the CRX Dx and Si in ITC and ITB. They put extra weight on the B car (based on the curb weight spec sheet I quoted from the innernut).

jjjanos

10-04-2007, 09:14 PM

THANK YOU, Jake! This is an important distinction, that is completely lost on Mr. Janos: If the adjustment is made BASED ON on-track performance, it's a performance adjustment (bleah). If it's INTENDED TO INFLUENCE on-track performance, it's an entirely different kettle of fish - Andy's coining of the term "competition setter" isn't very far off, even if he did make it up at 4:07pm this afternoon. :)[/b]

Oh, it's not a distinction lost on me. It's just a distinction without a difference to me since the ultimate aim is the same - approximation of equity across cars classified in the same classes.

The only difference is that

The a priori adjustments are (usually) done without real data. I.e. well, we think this car, based on its specifications belongs here and we are declaring its minimum weight to be this based upon its initial weight, what we think people can strip out of it and how fast we think it will go.

and

the ex post facto adjustments are done with real data as to how the car performs.

In a perfect world, there would be no ex post facto adjustments. In the real world, the equations that determine a car's capability frequently are too complex to be captured by a model and hence they need for after-the-fact adjustments. All in all, the CB does a pretty darn good job with their initial guess.

And it still leaves unanswered the two questions I asked: (a) The rational for the wheel rim rule in the first pace and (B) why are telling the owners of these cars that they need to purchase new wheels when there is an option that is a pareto improvement?

Knestis

10-04-2007, 09:27 PM

...or 4. I trust the current decision makers but have enough experience in this organization to know that they could all go away in 12 months, and we'd be left with whatever system they left in place.

You can put it in bold all you want but you are missing the key attributes of the operational definition of the term.

...these are all logic fallacies.[/b]
You might be surprised that, to a certain extent, I don't disagree. However, they are pragmatic protections from policy - or rules - creep, based on my 25 years of watching the same thing happen over, and over, and over again. We have to put systems in place assuming someone will leverage by the application of resources and power differential (or whatever means possible) to further their own individual intentions for a rule, practice, or policy (Hall, 1995; Hall & McGinty, 1997).

People are persistent and marginal changes over time can seriously redirect policy - and in this case, mess up the good thing that we finally have going here.

At this point, I'm not changing your mind - and you are wrong. :) So as I said, while I don't hope that you get what you want, I hope you can live with what you get.

Yeah - have fun with that. (Giles, 2005)

K

Giles, Scott. (2005). You don't know shit about shit. (Web smackdown) The Interweb.

Hall, P. M. (1995). The consequences of qualitative analysis for sociological theory: Beyond the microlevel. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(2), 397-423.

Hall, P. M., & McGinty, P. J. W. (1997). Policy as the transformation of intentions: Producing program from statute. The Sociological Quarterly, 38(3), 439-467.

Dave Ebersole

10-05-2007, 07:22 AM

.......And stop qualifying behind the ITC leaders so I don't watch you eventually dissapear since trying to pass the 4 of them was NOT an option though I had one chance when they all blocked each other to attempt to squeeze through but decided id rather just video them and stick to their tails and learn a trick or 5.
[/b]

Believe me I wasn't too happy with my times that afternoon. If only my diff hadn't come apart after 2 laps! I learned a valuable lesson anyway. Use Loc-tite on your ring gear bolts!

Bill Miller

10-05-2007, 08:57 AM

No. Moving the Borgward down a class is only a comp adjustment if it's being done because the car isn't competitive. In this case, a request was made to look closely at the cars numbers. It was researched, and found to be a car that fit the process in ITB, not ITA. That is a reclass based on numbers, not a comp adjustment.[/b]

Jake,

Please stop w/ the double-talk. We (as well as most of the other people here) both know that the 'boundary' cars could fall in either of the two classes that they are on the 'boundary' of. It's perfectly valid to say that the process puts the Borgward in ITA @ xxxx lbs and in ITB @ xxxx + yyy lbs. Those would both be valid classifications of the Borgward. The class-to-class distinction just isn't that clear cut, unless you're at the pointy end of the class. And if the Shelby was the grossly mis-classed, why wasn't it picked up last year? You guys did run every car in the ITCS through the process didn't you?

I'm not saying the car shouldn't be in ITB, I'm just tired of your weasel word double-talk. It's equally as valid to say, that after the great realignment, any actions taken as a response to a member's request, constitute a competition adjustment.

Again, not at all. There are plenty of cars that make very close to their potential power with a chip swap. Some have found that they have tried all sorts of ECUs (just for research) and the factory solution works best. So, it is clearly NOT a case of everybody having to add an open ECU.

(And interestingly, I've gotten letters from people that are remorseful this has taken so long, as they've spent buckets of money developing chips and such, and could have been money ahead if the rule had passed much sooner.)
[/b]

If I didn't know better, I'd say you just made a strong case for requiring stock ECUs. And, you could make the same argument about going to 7" wheels, it's not necessarily going to make the car faster. Especially w/ lower-powered cars like ITB and ITC, it's possible to over-tire the car. So, just because you could fit a 245/50/15 under and ITC Rabbit, on a 7" wheel, there's no way that you can guarantee that it will be faster.

And I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for people that spend buckets of money trying to make their cars faster, and then will whine because the rules didn't change fast enough to save them some money. Racing is not cheap, and racing at the pointy end of the field is down right expensive. That's the way this game works. And from your comment, it almost sounds like you're saying that rules should be pushed through, so that they save people money, rather than being given thorough consideration as to how they impact the entire category.

JamesB

10-05-2007, 10:18 AM

Also remember said bogwart that kicked all this off did not change min weight! And the non shelby charger with the same motor and not as hot of a factory cam is in ITB at a slightly lower weight.

rlward

10-05-2007, 10:45 AM

[quote]
Now, I just need to talk to somebody about getting the minimum weight lowered on the Daytona!!

Well, it appears that may be very easy...just write a letter, wait for them to act very slowly, and presto it's done!

JamesB

10-05-2007, 10:52 AM

Believe me I wasn't too happy with my times that afternoon. If only my diff hadn't come apart after 2 laps! I learned a valuable lesson anyway. Use Loc-tite on your ring gear bolts!
[/b]

Dave, believe me I was very happy with my times because I was consistent through the whole race. Now that I am not constantly fighting the car I can focus on my lines and improving my braking zones.

erlrich

10-05-2007, 11:43 AM

No. Moving the Borgward down a class is only a comp adjustment if it's being done because the car isn't competitive. In this case, a request was made to look closely at the cars numbers. It was researched, and found to be a car that fit the process in ITB, not ITA. That is a reclass based on numbers, not a comp adjustment.[/b] Hmmm, so if the Borgward WAS competitve in A, and nobody was complaining about the car being uncompetitive, it would still have moved to ITB because the numbers said that's where it belonged?

I think you guys should all take a step back and listen to what the other guys are saying; you might find that there is logic in both side's arguments. In the example here, the Borgward was moved down a class because it was re-examined, and the formula most likely determined it was one of those "tweener" cars, and the subjective part of the process (which probably was a significant factor in the original classing) was tweaked and it fell out in B. That's just one possible (probable?) scenario, but regardless of how it happened the fact is that the car was re-examined BECAUSE is was uncompetitive. So, even though the actual adjustment was not based on on-track performance, the adjustment indirectly resulted from on-track performance. So how about we call it an "indirect competition adjustment"?

Again, not at all. There are plenty of cars that make very close to their potential power with a chip swap. Some have found that they have tried all sorts of ECUs (just for research) and the factory solution works best. So, it is clearly NOT a case of everybody having to add an open ECU.[/b] Jake, I know you weren't one of the guys using the argument "if we allow 7" wheels in ITB/C then everyone will have to go out and get them", but your argument flies directly in the face of theirs. I'm sure there are plenty of cars that would see little or no performance advantage in moving from 6" to 7" wheels, but that didn't stop some of our most prolific debaters from using that as an argument against allowing wider rims. IMO neither is a valid argument for or against the change; the only valid arguments I see are a: does it fit with the overall class philosophy/intent, and/or b: is it good for the class overall. Pretty much anything else is just self-serving rationalization.

Andy Bettencourt

10-05-2007, 02:35 PM

OK, I will explain this one more time. The Shelby was by-passed in the 'correction' because it had some 'unknown' qualities that required some extra research. Effectively, we were 'scared' of the car just getting thrown into the process and hurting B. There are a few cars in the ITCS freak me out personally just like this one. How about the ITA Monza with the 3.8l V6 rated at 110 stock hp? It was left alone.

Kirk was right on the money when he said we did our best and would out certain cars under the microscope when requested.

The request came in to look at the car. It set off the chain of events which resulted in the reclass to B. It has nothing to do with lack of - or actual competitiveness. It is a rock solid B car IMHO - not even close to a tweener.

I will call this a 'correction set in motion by member request'. NOTHING to do from the ITAC side with competitivness.

jjjanos

10-05-2007, 03:15 PM

I'm going to raise a low shrill and beat the deceased horse again 'cause nobody has yet to answer...

What is the rational/purpose of the rule limiting wheel rim size in IT classes?

JoshS

10-05-2007, 04:00 PM

I'm going to raise a low shrill and beat the deceased horse again 'cause nobody has yet to answer...

What is the rational/purpose of the rule limiting wheel rim size in IT classes?
[/b]
Speaking for myself, and not in any officially or as a member of the ITAC:

This rule predates my time in IT. At this point in time it could possibly be considered an anachronism and just by that very nature is a candidate for discussion for change.

But changing this rule (unlike some anachronisms) would clearly alter the status-quo, and that makes it a touchy subject. There are no easy ways to clean up these sorts of issues. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but there has to be very compelling reasons to do something, and then it has to happen with a slow, careful methodology.

Knestis

10-05-2007, 04:28 PM

I'm going to raise a low shrill and beat the deceased horse again 'cause nobody has yet to answer...

What is the rational/purpose of the rule limiting wheel rim size in IT classes?
[/b]

Your not liking - or not wanting to hear - the answer is very different than nobody answering.

How did that tagline go? "In space, nobody can hear you scream."

K

erlrich

10-05-2007, 05:12 PM

The request came in to look at the car....

I will call this a 'correction set in motion by member request'. NOTHING to do from the ITAC side with competitivness.[/b] Sorry if I seemed to imply that Andy; I thought it was generally accepted that pretty much EVERY request to review car classification was member-generated. I also thought it was generally accepted that about 99.99999% of those member requests were the result of a (real or perceived) lack of competitiveness of said car. :D

lateapex911

10-05-2007, 05:46 PM

I'm going to raise a low shrill and beat the deceased horse again 'cause nobody has yet to answer...

What is the rational/purpose of the rule limiting wheel rim size in IT classe
[/b]

I seem to recall an answer back there regarding sizes that fit under fenders etc.

It was before my time, so I can't say first hand. However, I can say that when we created ITR, wheel size was discussed, and I remember making a warning that the final call should be one that everybody feels good about, because it would be carved in stone. We considered the stock sizes the cars came with, the ease of getting certain sizes, the need for the cars to be able to put down power, as well as the anticipated weight of the cars.

So, I would imagine that the folks who made the original calls did the same.

As for a "Good reason" why they don't get changed, I'd reiterate that I haven't seen a convincing case TO change them.

One of the things people tell me when I talk to them about IT is that they like the stability. They often say we are on the verge of changing things too quickly. Which means, to me, I better be darn sure that a rules change is really good for the category before I consider it.

Bill, I honestly shouldn't waste time responding to such name calling from you, and I won't.

Sorry if I seemed to imply that Andy; I thought it was generally accepted that pretty much EVERY request to review car classification was member-generated. I also thought it was generally accepted that about 99.99999% of those member requests were the result of a (real or perceived) lack of competitiveness of said car. :D

[/b]

Andy summed it up nicely, Remeber folks, there are hundres of cars in the ITCS. We were on the phone from 8 to 1 or 2 AM several times going over this stuff. And some of those cars are old and have weird specs.

We gave it all a good look, but we knew it was a first pass, and we knew we could fine tune things down the road if needed, such as in this case.

Earl, actually some items are internally generated. The ECU is an ITAC originated item, and there are certain cars getting looked at as we speak that we have initiated ourselves.

And I know of two people on this board who have acted in ways that actually hurt themselves but help the category. It's not always as it seems.

jjjanos

10-05-2007, 07:12 PM

Your not liking - or not wanting to hear - the answer is very different than nobody answering.

How did that tagline go? "In space, nobody can hear you scream."
[/b]

Well, I'm hearing why you think the rule shouldn't be relaxed for a particular car - because.

I'm hearing why you think the rule shouldn't be dropped - self-interest (because you've already invested in wheels that fit within the current rules).

The question is why the rule to begin with.

jjjanos

10-05-2007, 07:31 PM

ScotMac

10-05-2007, 08:25 PM

As i have been saying, the cars are correctly classed based on power/hp to weight and handling. Adding rim width restrictions does not make sense.

However, the main reason for the change is the lack of availability of 6" wheels, especially 5x100. Other than $400+ custom wheels from Kodiak/etc, and 15-20lb unsuitable stock wheels (most over double the weight of the Kodiaks), the only vendor remaining is spinwerkes (who could be better in terms of weight: 11.8lbs in a 14x6 w/ the necessary offset for my car). Only one reasonably priced supplier is not an acceptable availability, in order to base the development of the B and C classes on.

This lack of supply discourages new/future racers in the exact classes (B and C) that are seeing very small fields in many regions.

The only argument against the change has been existing racers attempting to safeguard the wheels they have already purchased. I am not saying that is not a consideration, but we must also consider the future of the two classes impacted.

I see two possible compromises, as a way of easing into this:

1. Use the proposed weight penalty as a means of allowing both the existing stock of 6" and new 7" rims.

2. Phase the change in. ie, instead of springing on the existing drivers, announce it now, but don't allow the 7" rims to be run for a year or two. Thus allowing people to prepare for it, rather than dumping on them immediately after they have bought 6" wheels.

shwah

10-05-2007, 09:18 PM

Andy Bettencourt

10-05-2007, 09:24 PM

Knestis

10-05-2007, 10:26 PM

...The question this afternoon is why the rule to begin with.
[/b]
There - fixed that for you. You'll keep asking it in different ways. That's Web Lawyer Rule #6, if I'm not mistaken. Let's test my hypothesis that you won't be able to leave it alone even after I answer THIS iteration:

I wasn't in the actual conversations that resulted in the first ITCS but I was racing IT cars under region-specific rules before the national rules were published, so I know the context in which those decisions were made.

IT was created as a reaction to the increasing cost and complexity of Production and Sedan/GT rules of the period, and as a place for SS cars to go when they retired, so simplicity was paramount. The "no guarantee" clause was intended to codify that - to eliminate any route or even temptation to pursue competition adjustments (bleah, bleah), that were WELL understood even then to be at the root of what we now call rules creep. To review, that's the effect of marginal allowances made, one car and one member request at a time, that add up to pretty dramatic escalation of the motorsports arms race in a class.

(I know, you reject that those forces are a problem.)

Remember that this was the early-to-mid 1980s. The state of the art in tires was such that they were WAY less sticky than now. We could never have conceived of something like a modern Hoosier or Hankook (et al.) so, much more so than is the case now, a wider wheel was understood to be an advantage. However, stock wheels were crappy stamped steel affairs for the most part so there was a desire to allow something better.

Consider too that the difference on a B or C car between a 6" wheel and the 4-1/2" or 5" wheel many of them came with was pretty dramatic. A 7" wheel was REALLY wide for the time. Given all of this, and a desire to make consistent as many variables as possible, a set maximum for each class was clearly a sensible answer. Each got what amounted to a +1" allowance beyond the widest wheels that came on cars in listed in the first generation of IT cars - a solution not entirely unlike what the current ITAC did for ITR.

So, there you go. You're welcome.

K

jjjanos

10-05-2007, 10:40 PM

What if a certain car comes with huge fenders that allows for huge wheels and tires?[/b]

Stock size rims or any size where the wheel/tire combo do not extend beyond the horizontal plane seem to be both concise and clear statements. I.e If I can shove 32" rims into my CRX, then I get to do it.

Wheels and tires that are above and beyond what anything else in the class can realistically fit? [/b]
Stock size rims or any size where the wheel/tire combo do not extend beyond the horizontal plane seem to be both concise and clear statements.

Does this just become an 'adder'? [/b]

Explain.

Do we have to know what width tires can fit under what fenders?[/b]

Well, with all due respect, you already need that information. You're allowing any car in ITA/ITS to run 7" wheels. Presumably if the purpose of the rule is to restrict rims to what will prevent fender rubbing, someone would need to know whether that proposed ITA vehicle can accomodate 7" wheels and whether the cars that appear to be classed in both ITR and ITS can accomodate the wider wheels.

How wide is considered wide enough for additional weight? How narrow is considered a subtractor? If you require each class to run on a standard rim width, you take away a variable that is difficult to account for in the 'process'.[/b]

Apparently something along the lines of 185lbs for 1.5" (based on the dual classifications) since dropping from ITR to ITS seems to have that impact on the one car I looked at.

How much is fuel-injection worth compared to a carb? How much is FWD compared to RDW worth? Let's get rid of those adjustments as well since they muck up the calculations with extra inputs.

And, I believe, you already should or do incorporate wheel size into the "process" since there are interactions between rim size and the other independent variables determining performance. A Honda CRX is going to suffer a great deal less by using a smaller wheel than will a whale like the New Beetle.

ScotMac

10-05-2007, 10:40 PM

Anyone that is buying 10lb (ish) wheels for a low price is getting an especially good deal. That does not give all other competitors some sort of birthright to cheap ultra light wheels. In the marketplace in general, very light wheels are very expensive, especially ones that are structurally suited to road racing. Why would you not expect this to be the case?

Some are lucky - like the 4x100 - 14x6" guys who have a Kosei wheel that is cheap and 10lbs. Of course they have also been known to break, so some could argue that custom is the only real way to go. Others that could use them like me, want to run a different size and can't find inexpensive lightweight options, but live with that reality and keep looking for used deals.
[/b]

And why relegate ourselves to that almost non-existent supply of 10lb 6" wheels, allowing only those w/ the big budgets to get them, when we could instead open it up to the much larger supply of 10lb 7" rims? Oh right because you want to:

Of course, I selfishly would like to keep using my 20+ existing 6" wheels.
[/b]

ScotMac

10-05-2007, 10:51 PM

There - fixed that for you. You'll keep asking it in different ways. That's Web Lawyer Rule #6, if I'm not mistaken. Let's test my hypothesis that you won't be able to leave it alone even after I answer THIS iteration:

I wasn't in the actual conversations that resulted in the first ITCS but I was racing IT cars under region-specific rules before the national rules were published, so I know the context in which those decisions were made.

IT was created as a reaction to the increasing cost and complexity of Production and Sedan/GT rules of the period, and as a place for SS cars to go when they retired, so simplicity was paramount. The "no guarantee" clause was intended to codify that - to eliminate any route or even temptation to pursue competition adjustments (bleah, bleah), that were WELL understood even then to be at the root of what we now call rules creep. To review, that's the effect of marginal allowances made, one car and one member request at a time, that add up to pretty dramatic escalation of the motorsports arms race in a class.

(I know, you reject that those forces are a problem.)

Remember that this was the early-to-mid 1980s. The state of the art in tires was such that they were WAY less sticky than now. We could never have conceived of something like a modern Hoosier or Hankook (et al.) so, much more so than is the case now, a wider wheel was understood to be an advantage. However, stock wheels were crappy stamped steel affairs for the most part so there was a desire to allow something better.

Consider too that the difference on a B or C car between a 6" wheel and the 4-1/2" or 5" wheel many of them came with was pretty dramatic. A 7" wheel was REALLY wide for the time. Given all of this, and a desire to make consistent as many variables as possible, a set maximum for each class was clearly a sensible answer. Each got what amounted to a +1" allowance beyond the widest wheels that came on cars in listed in the first generation of IT cars - a solution not entirely unlike what the current ITAC did for ITR.

So, there you go. You're welcome.

[/b]

Yes, setting a maximum size is probably a good idea, for the reason Andy gave: an easily classifiable variable for the process. The only question is what that max size should be.

And yes, the 6" rim was a historical decision that doesn't necessarily apply any more. In fact, the +1" for many of the current B and C cars would definitely not be a 6" rim. It isn't any more strange to put 7" wheels on B and C cars as it is to put them on A cars.

Bill Miller

10-05-2007, 11:04 PM

I seem to recall an answer back there regarding sizes that fit under fenders etc.

It was before my time, so I can't say first hand. However, I can say that when we created ITR, wheel size was discussed, and I remember making a warning that the final call should be one that everybody feels good about, because it would be carved in stone. We considered the stock sizes the cars came with, the ease of getting certain sizes, the need for the cars to be able to put down power, as well as the anticipated weight of the cars.

So, I would imagine that the folks who made the original calls did the same.

As for a "Good reason" why they don't get changed, I'd reiterate that I haven't seen a convincing case TO change them.

One of the things people tell me when I talk to them about IT is that they like the stability. They often say we are on the verge of changing things too quickly. Which means, to me, I better be darn sure that a rules change is really good for the category before I consider it.

Bill, I honestly shouldn't waste time responding to such name calling from you, and I won't.
Andy summed it up nicely, Remeber folks, there are hundres of cars in the ITCS. We were on the phone from 8 to 1 or 2 AM several times going over this stuff. And some of those cars are old and have weird specs.

We gave it all a good look, but we knew it was a first pass, and we knew we could fine tune things down the road if needed, such as in this case.

Earl, actually some items are internally generated. The ECU is an ITAC originated item, and there are certain cars getting looked at as we speak that we have initiated ourselves.

And I know of two people on this board who have acted in ways that actually hurt themselves but help the category. It's not always as it seems.
[/b]

Name calling? Get over yourself. When you float a line of crap like that out there, don't get your panties in a knot when someone calls you on it.

And please, after the morass that you and the rest of the ITAC have spent the last couple of years 'fixing', I find it downright laughable that you give the original IT rule-framers credit for that kind of foresight.

And if the Shelby was such an anomaly, why weren't you guys already on it? Why did it take a member request for you to look at it again?

And really Andy, if the car was such a 'solid B car', why was there any need to hesitate on it?

It's all about perception guys.

Knestis

10-05-2007, 11:07 PM

... Oh right because you want to[/b]
What you want Scot, what I want, and what any other individual IT racer wants should be trumped by what is best for the category. And Jake is right - most people believe that rules stability is best for IT.

If you get what you argue passionately for, are you then totally OK with the ITAC and CRB granting every other racer who pitches the same heartfelt case getting exactly what he or she wants to improve his/her competitiveness, too?

K

jjjanos

10-05-2007, 11:08 PM

Remember that this was the early-to-mid 1980s. The state of the art in tires was such that they were WAY less sticky than now. We could never have conceived of something like a modern Hoosier or Hankook (et al.) so, much more so than is the case now, a wider wheel was understood to be an advantage. However, stock wheels were crappy stamped steel affairs for the most part so there was a desire to allow something better.[/b]

To paraphrase, Prod tries to shoehorn new technology into obsolete cars by adjusting the rules and
IT tries to shoehorn obsolete rules onto new technology by adjusting nothing?

Given all of this, and a desire to make consistent as many variables as possible, a set maximum for each class was clearly a sensible answer.[/b]

Well, that's an answer.

Knestis

10-05-2007, 11:10 PM

To paraphrase, Prod tries to shoehorn new technology into obsolete cars by adjusting the rules and
IT tries to shoehorn obsolete rules onto new technology by adjusting nothing? ...
[/b]
That is an inspired way to look at it! :birra:
K

jjjanos

10-05-2007, 11:46 PM

What you want Scot, what I want, and what any other individual IT racer wants should be trumped by what is best for the category. And Jake is right - most people believe that rules stability is best for IT.[/b]

While I would agree that what is best for a competitor should not trump what is best for the category, I think you might be ignoring or downplaying an important factor -

The rules were made to satisfy the demands of the racers. The racers are not made to satisfy the demands of the rules. Simply because the founding fathers said that the best thing for IT was to require that sails must be original manufacturer equipment or the exact equivalent does not mean that this remains the case. At some point, what is best for the class is allowing sail material to be altered because the original hemp sails coated with asbestos just cannot be found.

I can find no section of the IT rules that say that rules permanance is the intent of the category. I can find no section of the rules that say car specific changes to accomodate a scarcity of available parts are against the philosophy/purpose of the class.

I think many people are upholding the sanctity of the rules as they are written and ignoring the ultimate justification for the IT category - "to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition."

And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

ScotMac

10-06-2007, 12:49 AM

What you want Scot, what I want, and what any other individual IT racer wants should be trumped by what is best for the category. And Jake is right - most people believe that rules stability is best for IT.

If you get what you argue passionately for, are you then totally OK with the ITAC and CRB granting every other racer who pitches the same heartfelt case getting exactly what he or she wants to improve his/her competitiveness, too?

K
[/b]

Right Kirk, go back and look who has been arguing for the best of IT all along in this discussion vs. who has been trying to selfishly protect the use of their existing 6" wheels.

Also, go back and look. I have NEVER once argued about a competitive advantage. I have argued the greater availability of 7" rims at a lower price, reduced tire wear (cost) due to better sidewall angles, and the side benefit of ease of moving between classes.

You are right, what is best for the future of IT is what should be considered here. Yes, rules stability is important. But we also must change w/ the times. The choice to use those 6" rims is based on a historical reason that is no longer applicable. And the greater availability of suitable rims in the 7" size, at a lower cost, is good for the future of IT.

In fact, this is very similar to the 15" rule change that was lobbied for heavily by *you* 4 years ago, despite the fact that it was against rule stability. Why? Because it was a change that was good for IT. Change can be a good thing.

15" diameter change discussion (note Kirks agreement w/ my point about the side benefit of easier class changes):

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...%20wheels&st=60 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=346&hl=5\.5%20wheels&st=60)

RSTPerformance

10-06-2007, 02:41 AM

I just wanted to say that I agree with all those whom have said that they want rules stability... At this current point I would love to see ZERO rule changes, only adding/changing of specific cars in certain classes. The rules are fine how they are, and the process seems to be working when classing cars.

Changing this wheel width rule WILL have a negative impact IMO. Look up the numerose RX7 and MR2 debates on moving those cars from ITA -> ITB and you will see that people have said that they will not dominate if moved due to smaller wheels (6" vs 7") and more weight, making them competitive but not overdogs. These fights/arguments always seem to change from week to week... Fustrating

Raymond "Keep the friggen rules the way they are, or fix all of them already... :bash_1_: " Blethen

Andy Bettencourt

10-06-2007, 07:44 AM

And if the Shelby was such an anomaly, why weren't you guys already on it? Why did it take a member request for you to look at it again?

And really Andy, if the car was such a 'solid B car', why was there any need to hesitate on it?

It's all about perception guys.
[/b]

Bill,

What the heck is the matter with you? You sound more like MattBerg every day. You have a personal beef with Jake? You are bitching about semingly nothing - and you are also failing to read the post fully.

We did the correction and left cars that were questionable alone - vowing to act upon them as member requests came in. The Shelby was one of them.

AFTER the research was done, it was determined to be a B-car. 110hp, FWD and struts. It disin't trun out to be an under-rated, high-compression sleeper motor that some worried about. That gen was mostly an appearence package with a slightly uprated motor that was a prelude to the 146hp 2.2 turbos that fell into a ton of Chrysler products therafter.

Andy Bettencourt

10-06-2007, 08:20 AM

Stock size rims or any size where the wheel/tire combo do not extend beyond the horizontal plane seem to be both concise and clear statements. I.e If I can shove 32" rims into my CRX, then I get to do it.

[/b]

I will admit that I don't fully understand what you are arguing. My point is that if a car comes with the 'abnormal' ability to fit huge wheels and tires where others in class can't, it provides a huge advantage within a structure of open wheel widths. It's complexity to a successful (yet flawed) classification model we don't need.

shwah

10-06-2007, 08:58 AM

And why relegate ourselves to that almost non-existent supply of 10lb 6" wheels, allowing only those w/ the big budgets to get them, when we could instead open it up to the much larger supply of 10lb 7" rims? Oh right because you want to:
[/b]

Of course I want to keep using my wheels. Does that make me unusual? I would expect that a large majority of current IT competitors would like to keep their existing wheel sizes. I made that point when the argument being presented was that it does not hurt anyone to allow wider wheels in ITB and ITC. It does hurt people, lots of them, including me.

This has been hit from every angle (by different people - I know these are not all your positions) - 6" wheels are too narrow to be safe on cars that weigh 2400# or more (except lots of cars over that weight race at the front of ITB now) - there are no tires that can fit on 6" wheels (except that there are lots of available tires that fit on these wheels) - there are no 15x6 5x100 wheels (except they were oem on tons of cars and are very available) - there are no 15x6 wheels that are as light as I want (except you can buy any very light wheel you want - they are expensive for you, just like they are for almost everyone else) - cars moving from ITA to ITB will have to replace wheels and adjust suspension settings (we should not tailor the class rules to the very few cases that this will affect, and OH btw those cars are not competitive when in ITA and can be competitive in ITB, talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth...(and fwiw the majority of ITB competitors welcome these additions of potentially competitive cars - not exactly turf protection)).

At every step the underlying logic was that it had to be proved that changing the wheel width rule would hurt racing, and if this could not be proven, then it must be a great idea for all. This flies in the face of the very characteristic that most IT racers appreciate about our ruleset - rule stability. If rule stability is the goal, then the argument needs to be presented explaining why not making a change will hurt the current state of the category, and why making the specifically requested change is the best alternative for the ENTIRE class.

Funny how you have resorted to trotting out "ITB Protectionism" to discredit any argument made by an ITB competitor at this point, when the whole underlying purpose of your argument is personal gain for your racing effort. When I read your posts, I get the impression that you feel strongly that 10# wheels are keeping you from running where you want to in your 'pack', and you feel strongly that you should be able to buy those 10# wheels for real cheap so that you can continue to spend the remainder of your budget on other items to make your car as competitive as possible. Sounds like a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

As I said before, I would not support making a wheel width change for any IT class, regardless of where I am racing, without being convinced that the currently legal sizes were not reasonably available, or tires were not reasonably available for the legal wheels. IMO one specific application that has tons of available wheels, but needs to buy high end wheels to get ultra light versions, is not enough to support this argument.

Having a discussion with people who will only cherry pick select statements over and over is not very productive - I'm done.

Knestis

10-06-2007, 09:03 AM

Right Kirk, go back and look who has been arguing for the best of IT all along in this discussion vs. who has been trying to selfishly protect the use of their existing 6" wheels.

Also, go back and look. I have NEVER once argued about a competitive advantage. I have argued the greater availability of 7" rims at a lower price, reduced tire wear (cost) due to better sidewall angles, and the side benefit of ease of moving between classes.

You are right, what is best for the future of IT is what should be considered here. Yes, rules stability is important. But we also must change w/ the times. The choice to use those 6" rims is based on a historical reason that is no longer applicable. And the greater availability of suitable rims in the 7" size, at a lower cost, is good for the future of IT.

In fact, this is very similar to the 15" rule change that was lobbied for heavily by *you* 4 years ago, despite the fact that it was against rule stability. Why? Because it was a change that was good for IT. Change can be a good thing.

15" diameter change discussion (note Kirks agreement w/ my point about the side benefit of easier class changes):

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...%20wheels&st=60 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=346&hl=5\.5%20wheels&st=60)
[/b]

Well done, Scot. I always appreciate when someone does their homework. :)

Where I'm internally inconsistent, I believe it's because I can see multiple sides of an issue. In THIS conversation, I argued my own interests rhetorically in an effort to illustrate that others are doing the same thing. Yeah, I have an interest - an investment - there but that's not the entire issue.

Point being (yet again) that if I want one thing, and you want another, the ITAC has the unenviable job of doing what is right for the long-term health of the category. They are left to decide which is the lesser of two evils - leaving the wheel solution options tight for some drivers, or making fundamental changes to the rules category:

** Different widths for different models in the same class
** Wider wheels for entire categories
** Weight penalty plus wheels for anyone who chooses
** Etc.

Up sides and down sides. I FIRMLY believe that in this case, any of the options presented is a problem. Anything that promotes differences within categories (the first and third choices above) is particularly bad so of those, a shift to bigger wheels all around is the least awful.

On the 15" issue, *I* argued (and still believe) that that particular change didn't have the down sides to keep it from being a good way to help resolve the wheel availability issue (which I've never denied exists). It's very difficult for me to conceive of a way that an ITA guy who goes from a 14x7 wheel to a 15x7 wheel is going to automagically inherit a relative competitive advantage. Wheel/tire rotational inertia is higher, tires of the same OD are more expensive, and it takes the gearing the wrong way. On the plus side, some may like the increased sidewall stiffness. It's a wash.

That is not the case - to my mind - of allowing another inch of width. And I'm NOT going to endorse differential specifications for cars within a category - spec line allowances, etc. - because despite anyone "rejecting" it, I KNOW FIRST HAND what those damned camels will do to a perfectly good rule set.

And finally - and read this carefully, Scot - you are either being disingenuous or just not thinking about your own case critically, if you don't recognize that all of your arguments are about your own competitive advantage.

I have NEVER once argued about a competitive advantage. I have argued the greater availability of 7" rims at a lower price, reduced tire wear (cost) due to better sidewall angles, and the side benefit of ease of moving between classes.[/b]

You are talking about saving money one wheels (so you can spend it elsewhere going faster), and saving money on tires (so you can buy more and run them in newer, faster condition more often. It's handy that you can make this case for the Fiero in the context of cars getting moved but do this test - would you endorse the idea of wider wheels being allowed on cars moved from A to B, if the rule included a clause restating the philosophy that "it is contrary to the first principles of IT and the wishes of the founding fathers, so cars currently in B will NEVER EVER, EVER BE ALLOWED TO RUN 7" WHEELS." Ever?

Say "yes."

I have never been about preserving the rules for rules' sake. I am - despite my best efforts, sometimes - adamantly against rules creep and competition adjustments, defined in the subtle and complex ways that I spent more than a quarter freakin' century learning to define them. And I get very worried when people won't even consider that their own competitive hopes and desires can't be put ahead of the big picture.

K

PS - as a footnote, I don't think I WOULD realize any significant performance advantage on my car, with 7" wheels. We've just gone to a 225 front, 205 rear package, supporting my belief that it is very possible to go too wide. And BTW, 14x7's are less available than 14x6's - that was the poster child for the +1" diameter case, meaning that I'd be facing, along with a lot of others, the question of going to a 15x7...

lateapex911

10-06-2007, 09:37 AM

Name calling? Get over yourself. When you float a line of crap like that out there, don't get your panties in a knot when someone calls you on it.

And please, after the morass that you and the rest of the ITAC have spent the last couple of years 'fixing', I find it downright laughable that you give the original IT rule-framers credit for that kind of foresight.

And if the Shelby was such an anomaly, why weren't you guys already on it? Why did it take a member request for you to look at it again?

And really Andy, if the car was such a 'solid B car', why was there any need to hesitate on it?

It's all about perception guys.
[/b]

Bill, when you get your anti-crumudgeon/chronic malcontent drug dosage fixed, (It's obviously slipping), I'll discuss this. But now such discussion is a waste of my time, and I have more things to do than the day has hours.

OK, on the wheel issue- Comparing the width vs the diameter issue is a bit of a red herring. Not 100%, but still significantly different.

Allowing alternate (larger) diameters was done as our info showed that there was considerable difficulty in sourcing such wheels and tires.....and......the performance differences were rather minor. Most often cited advantage of the difference was "better feel", and some wheel/tire packages could weigh a tad less.

The ITAC decided...after considerable debate, that the time had come, and the long term cost of the rule change was minor compared to the long term benefit.

This is different. As pointed out by Andy, the classification process uses a set width in the calculation. If the width was to be changed, how do we reclass? Because we know that those rims won't fit on all cars...
We also know that it would be an advantage for certain cars. More so some than others. That's adding a lot of complexity to the process procedure. And IF we hit the "new" process on the head of the nail, we're cool, but if not, we may have destroyed the class balances we've worked so hard to acheive. (Because, most reasonable people seem to feel that IT is the most balanced, and most "fair" that it's been in years.....I would hate to mess with that needlessly)

..........And we have a nation of racers holding stock in these wheels.

Again, I don't see a compelling reason TO make a change, and I see a lot of compelling reasons NOT to.

Simply, the costs far outstrip the benefits in my eyes.

ScotMac

10-06-2007, 11:24 AM

Kirk, thanks for thinking about this a bit more, and a good thought out response.

This situation is actually very similar to the one for the 15" wheel rule change. That is, a change that increases the supply at a lower cost. You are correct that the supply of 14x7 wheels is almost just as bad as the supply of 14x6. You having done that search means that you know what i am talking about. But it is key to note that the supply of 15x6 wheels is also bad. Therefore, the B and C drivers are not able to take advantage of your 15" diam change, because of supply. The supply of 15x7 wheels, on the other hand, is comparably much larger (which was the impetus of the 15" diam change), especially when considering race suitable under 12-13lbs wheels.

It bears repeating, the B and C drivers are really unable to take advantage of te 15" diam change, because it is only really applicable to the 7" and greater rim widths. Kirk, this is about supply.

Let me give you a bit of short-term history. I needed a new set of wheels (was buying new tires, and needed a set of wheels to allow me to "cure" the new tires). Started looking on the web. Now, i work in the software industry. I am very good at doing web searches. I probably called 50 (not an exaggeration) different vendors who listed 14x6 or 15x6 wheels, over a duration of an day-in-day-out 2-week search. Every lead dried up because of lack of supply or too heavy of wheels. The vast majority was just not available because the company had stopped producing them, due to lack of market demand.

Also, you are correct, it doesn't necessarily result in a performance change going to 1" wider rims. In fact, in some cases it is worse. In other cases it doesn't change much at all, since 225 tires are already being run. Therefore, the racer is already running the wide tires, and this just allows him to run a little better sidewall angle, and get a little more rigidity or feel, w/ little change to overall performance. Again, very similar to the arguments for the 15" diam change.

This change is exactly in line w/ the philosophy of IT, as you and others argued in the 15" diam change. It allows more of the (low budget) B and C drivers to utilize lightweight racing wheels.

-Scot :)

PS: I have already sent in my letter requesting this change, and encourage anyone who feels the same way to send in theirs. Send it to [email protected].

rlward

10-06-2007, 01:15 PM

Bill,

What the heck is the matter with you? You sound more like MattBerg every day. You have a personal beef with Jake? You are bitching about semingly nothing - and you are also failing to read the post fully.

We did the correction and left cars that were questionable alone - vowing to act upon them as member requests came in. The Shelby was one of them.

AFTER the research was done, it was determined to be a B-car. 110hp, FWD and struts. It disin't trun out to be an under-rated, high-compression sleeper motor that some worried about. That gen was mostly an appearence package with a slightly uprated motor that was a prelude to the 146hp 2.2 turbos that fell into a ton of Chrysler products therafter.
[/b]

Andy- it appears a lot more discussion was in order before the committee made the change. That may be hindsight that can be used later. You had sain in an earlier post the notice was in SPROTSCAR mag...I can't find it. What issue? Another thind to consider that might make any class change DOWN is to let the car run in the original class for a period of 1 or 2 seasons or make the mandated changes and run in the new class. The information gained in both classes would indicate if the change was for the good of the series or not. I, myself would rather run ITA in what you call a non compertitve car for just that reason..it is less cometitive. so I have to try harder to be in the top 5. I have done it iITB and I can/will get better. Just because the can has 110hp and struts doen't in itself make it uncompetitive. If I am not mistaken someone still has to drive that thing, someone still has to set suspensions, etc. What is the definition of "competitive"? Heck, when I first started racing, I couldn't have come in in the top 5 with the best prepared car in any class. Now I hope I have a few more skills...time to work on the car - not reclassify it. I bought the car to race in ITA, not ITB. I knew it was an underdog, but it still has potential for development within the rules..Also please elaborate on the "research"; I am still at a loss on where this all took place.

spnkzss

10-06-2007, 03:00 PM

What if a certain car comes with huge fenders that allows for huge wheels and tires? Wheels and tires that are above and beyond what anything else in the class can realistically fit? Does this just become an 'adder'? Do we have to know what width tires can fit under what fenders? How wide is considered wide enough for additional weight? How narrow is considered a subtractor?

If you require each class to run on a standard rim width, you take away a variable that is difficult to account for in the 'process'.
[/b]

That has been one of the best/acceptable answers I have seen yet. I can accept that.

Now my question is, why is there a difference between ITA and ITB/ITC. If you argue that ITA needs the wider tire, more power blah blah blah, then why isn't there a difference between ITB and ITC. I think ITB/ITC should be allowed the option of 7" wheels. At a bare minimum any cars that are transfered from ITA to ITB should have a line item added in teh GCR allowing them to run 7" wheels.

Everybody is worried that 7" wide rims may speed cars up. When you look at some of these ITA cars taht you want to move down to ITB you look at it's current state as comparison. You move them to ITB, you take away the 7" rims, and you have now changed it's potential. You could even use the 7" wide wheel for those ex ITA cars as an adder if you feel it necessary, which seems to be counter productive.

Those of you that are also concerned that you put a 7" wide wheel on an ITC car and making it faster, you might be surprised to see it slow some of them down. My ITC car with 70hp miht not like the added contact patch.

Knestis

10-06-2007, 04:44 PM

I'm trying, Scot but I'm still struggling to see past the presentation of what's in it for you. I do this policy and evaluation stuff for a living so bear with me if this sounds pedantic:

You are correct that the supply of 14x7 wheels is almost just as bad as the supply of 14x6. ...[/b]
Actually, 14x7 options are WAY less common than 14x6. Fact.

But it is key to note that the supply of 15x6 wheels is also bad. Therefore, the B and C drivers are not able to take advantage of your 15" diam change, because of supply.[/b]
Point granted. In fact, 15x6 wheels are clearly a hell of a lot LESS common than 14x6, since they are less common than 14x7. So far, the most common size under discussion - setting aside issues relating to the influence of bolt pattern - is without question 14x6.

The supply of 15x7 wheels, on the other hand, is comparably much larger (which was the impetus of the 15" diam change), especially when considering race suitable under 12-13lbs wheels.[/b]
Again - you are right. However, the argument for the increase in diameter was made based on the "14x7 problem," as it particularly impacted ITA cars that can already run 7" wheels.

It bears repeating, the B and C drivers are really unable to take advantage of te 15" diam change, because it is only really applicable to the 7" and greater rim widths. Kirk, this is about supply.[/b]
...and here's where your case goes completely sideways, to my mind: You want to "take advantage of 15" wheels" - why, because you think they handle better? You CAN'T have assumed that "taking advantage" meant "taking advantage of the huge supply of 15x6" wheels on the market, because as you correctly point out, there just aren't any.

... I probably called 50 (not an exaggeration) different vendors who listed 14x6 or 15x6 wheels, over a duration of an day-in-day-out 2-week search. Every lead dried up because of lack of supply or too heavy of wheels. The vast majority was just not available because the company had stopped producing them, due to lack of market demand.[/b]
And I contend that your problem isn't with wheel size - it's with the relatively uncommon bolt pattern and/or offset that you need for your car. THAT - unfortunately - is a model-specific challenge that you inherit with your choice of car. And you made your life harder by trying to find 15x6's in that pattern, where 14's might well be more common. The IT rules simply CAN'T afford to be reactive to those kinds of individual needs.

You compound the problem by actually wanting LIGHT and STRONG racing wheels, in a rare size and pattern. The ITAC has absolutely no obligation to make sure that Racer X can find parts that improve his chance of being competitive. If we could do it without any downside, maybe but that just isn't the case.

Also, you are correct, it doesn't necessarily result in a performance change going to 1" wider rims. In fact, in some cases it is worse. In other cases it doesn't change much at all, since 225 tires are already being run. ...[/b]
However, you completely discount the possibility that some cars WILL benefit significantly from more wheel. If I were running an ITB Daytona, which is almost certainly rubber-limited because of its weight (which is a result of its greater power) I'd be pretty interested if I could fit 245-50-15 Hoosiers on the front, given another inch of wheel to work with. Blanket change = inequitable distribution of benefit and the need to go back to the calculators with another variable in The Process, which is already criticized by some for having too many variables.

It just doesn't hang togehter, man.

K

Andy Bettencourt

10-06-2007, 05:44 PM

Andy- it appears a lot more discussion was in order before the committee made the change. That may be hindsight that can be used later. You had sain in an earlier post the notice was in SPROTSCAR mag...I can't find it. What issue? Another thind to consider that might make any class change DOWN is to let the car run in the original class for a period of 1 or 2 seasons or make the mandated changes and run in the new class. The information gained in both classes would indicate if the change was for the good of the series or not. I, myself would rather run ITA in what you call a non compertitve car for just that reason..it is less cometitive. so I have to try harder to be in the top 5. I have done it iITB and I can/will get better. Just because the can has 110hp and struts doen't in itself make it uncompetitive. If I am not mistaken someone still has to drive that thing, someone still has to set suspensions, etc. What is the definition of "competitive"? Heck, when I first started racing, I couldn't have come in in the top 5 with the best prepared car in any class. Now I hope I have a few more skills...time to work on the car - not reclassify it. I bought the car to race in ITA, not ITB. I knew it was an underdog, but it still has potential for development within the rules..Also please elaborate on the "research"; I am still at a loss on where this all took place. [/b]

Here is the point: The competitiveness of the car IS NOT A CONSIDERATION when running something through the process. The trigger for the sender may be, but on-track results aren't factored in when running these things through. It is what it is - they are what they are.

Dual classifications is not in the near future for IT from the vibe I get from the CRB.

I am not sure I understand your first sentence. A lot more discussion? We learned and we classed appropriately given the paramaters we currently use. We don't define your on-track performance, you do.

Bill Miller

10-06-2007, 07:02 PM

We did the correction and left cars that were questionable alone - vowing to act upon them as member requests came in. The Shelby was one of them.
[/b]

And that's where things get sideways Andy. You guys worked very hard to develop an objective process that pretty much took the 'Me! Me! Me' out of it. You state that you know that you've got oddballs that don't fit the normal process, but you're not going to take the initiative and do the legwork, rather you'll wait until someone asks. To me, that does more to tear down what you guys have worked so hard for than anything else I can think of.

Getting things out in the open, and making them more objective was a quantum leap for IT. To let things slide through like this, and open it up to dealing w/ individual requests for corrections/adjustments/re-classifications flies in the face of all that you guys worked so hard for.

Kirk,

I don't want to speak for Scott, but my interpretation of his comment about the B&C folks not being able to 'take advantage' of the 15" wheel rule is similar to some cars not being able to 'take advantage' of the open ECU rule. You can't take advantage of something if it's not available to you. Not entirely the same, but that's the way I took his comment.

Oh, and is someone's going to play the safety card about heavy cars on 6" wheels, the New Beetle should have never landed in ITC.

I'd like to see how many people that are against allowing 7" wheels in B&C, because they want rules stability, also support the open ECU rule. That, more than anything else, is one of the biggest deviations from a stable ruleset that we've seen in IT yet. And none of this 'but it was already opened up' nonsense. It totally goes against the IT philosophy, and was a weak cop-out by a group that didn't want to do their job. And it could be reversed. There's a track record that shows that things can be undone.

Bill, when you get your anti-crumudgeon/chronic malcontent drug dosage fixed, (It's obviously slipping), I'll discuss this. But now such discussion is a waste of my time, and I have more things to do than the day has hours.[/b]

That's pretty funny Jake. You admonish me for 'name calling' (which I didn't actually do), but don't want to hold yourself to the same standard. No problem (and no surprise). And, if you're so busy, maybe you don't have enough time to devote to the ITAC. But then again, if you weren't on the ITAC, I'm not sure what you would do to get your attention-whore fix (BTW, THAT was name calling).

rcc85

10-06-2007, 07:52 PM

Knestis

10-06-2007, 09:21 PM

If I were running an ITB Daytona, which is almost certainly rubber-limited because of its weight (which is a result of its greater power)
Not a good choice as an example, Kirk, since it's only 99 hp stock. However, the fenders are pretty big :rolleyes:
Bob Clifton
ITB Dodge Daytona
[/b]

Really? :blink: That's pretty messed up...

K

EDIT - it strikes me that the fact that I'm surprised by this is a really excellent indicator of how our expectations have changed in just a very few years. Look back at that thread Scot cites (2004) and it's clear that there are a lot of things that hadn't been done yet. The Egg was still an S car, and the equivalent replacement part rule hadn't been added, to name just two that I noticed...

JoshS

10-06-2007, 10:34 PM

I'd like to see how many people that are against allowing 7" wheels in B&C, because they want rules stability, also support the open ECU rule. That, more than anything else, is one of the biggest deviations from a stable ruleset that we've seen in IT yet. And none of this 'but it was already opened up' nonsense. It totally goes against the IT philosophy, and was a weak cop-out by a group that didn't want to do their job. And it could be reversed. There's a track record that shows that things can be undone.
[/b]

That is incredibly insulting ... the current ITAC clearly has the best interest of the future of the category and the club at heart, and tries very hard to balance that against member's wishes. And every member of this team is also very clearly dedicated to doing his job.

Anything can be reversed. On this one, there was SIGNIFICANT concern that if the current rule were reversed, that the result had MANY MANY issues. That decision was not taken even remotely lightly and many many many hours were spent discussing it and researching it. Please. Give us some credit.

Unbelievable. Hard to believe anyone volunteers given "customer" attitudes like that.

PS: I was one of the ITAC members that initially wanted to go back. It was after a lot of research, a lot of discussion, and a lot of listening to members that I changed my mind. I don't change my mind easily. I'm very stubborn. Ask my wife. And I don't get insulted very easily but you just managed to do it.

I frankly think you owe the entire committee an apology.

Bill Miller

10-07-2007, 06:51 AM

Hey Josh,

Were you one of the people that originally implemented the open ECU (anything in the stock box) rule? If not, you've got nothing to feel insulted about. I don't know if ANY of the current ITAC members were part of the committee then, and IIRC, they weren't the ones that initiated it.

lateapex911

10-07-2007, 09:56 AM

........................ also support the open ECU rule. That, more than anything else, is one of the biggest deviations from a stable ruleset that we've seen in IT yet. And none of this 'but it was already opened up' nonsense. It totally goes against the IT philosophy, and was a weak cop-out by a group that didn't want to do their job. And it could be reversed. There's a track record that shows that things can be undone.

That's pretty funny Jake. You admonish me for 'name calling' (which I didn't actually do), but don't want to hold yourself to the same standard. No problem (and no surprise). And, if you're so busy, maybe you don't have enough time to devote to the ITAC. But then again, if you weren't on the ITAC, I'm not sure what you would do to get your attention-whore fix (BTW, THAT was name calling). [/b]

Josh typed what was on my mind, the only difference being in the timing of the change of heart regarding the issue. I came to the conclusion a bit earlier than he, but we travelled down the same road, and have the same reservations. So, thanks Josh, that saved me a bit of typing.

And Bill, your comment above clearly shows your intent to blame the current group, otherwise you wouldn't have included the qualifier that I've boldened. Sidestep not accepted. Can't have it both ways.

pfcs49

10-07-2007, 11:07 AM

Bill-I find you wrong-minded, obnoxious, confrontive, and unpleasant at times.
This is not one of those times.
A fair question.
phil

Bill Miller

10-07-2007, 02:10 PM

Josh typed what was on my mind, the only difference being in the timing of the change of heart regarding the issue. I came to the conclusion a bit earlier than he, but we travelled down the same road, and have the same reservations. So, thanks Josh, that saved me a bit of typing.

And Bill, your comment above clearly shows your intent to blame the current group, otherwise you wouldn't have included the qualifier that I've boldened. Sidestep not accepted. Can't have it both ways.
[/b]

Read it the way you want to Jake, you're wrong. I put that in there because I'm tired of the people that use the argument that it's already a done deal (vis-a-vis 'anything in the stock box'). I'll admit that I could have worded it better to avoid some of the confusion, but the blame was not directed at the current ITAC. The "it's already opened up" argument has been used by those in favor of a total swap, saying that the total swap doesn't do anything more than currently exists.

This pooch was screwed by the people that implemented the 'stuff it in the stock box' rule. Again, I apologize that I didn't word it better, but you're wrong in saying that it's directed at the current group. Anybody that's been on here any length of time knows that I don't flip-flop on things. This is no different. You can accept that at face value, or not, your choice.

seckerich

10-07-2007, 08:51 PM

Last I checked the ITAC asked for input on the ECU rule and responded to the wishes of the IT drivers. You always expect them to cower down to your wishes and then say they lack "balls" if it doesn't go your way. Right or wrong Bill you do not run the whole show. Write your letter, get others to see it your way if you can, then shut the hell up and quit your crying and attacking the members of the ITAC every time you don't get your way. Your personal crap hidden behind your continuous accusations get a little old. Grow up man. :dead_horse:

Bill Miller

10-08-2007, 06:20 AM

Hey Steve,

Pay attention. All I EVER wanted, regardless of the issue at hand, was internal consistency. What warrants when an issue gets sent out for member input and when it doesn't? The proposed new ECU rule went out for member input, but the 'stuff in the stock' box version didn't. Why not send the 7" wheel rule for ITB&C out for member input? Why not send the 1st gen RX7 and AW11 MR2 reclassification issue out? They did it for the Golf III?

Andy Bettencourt

10-08-2007, 07:28 AM

For something to go out for member input, the ITAC / CRB would actually want to make a change. It's a prelude to a change to get input. In theory, the RFMI would be to 'confirm' what the ITAC thinks is the best way to go.

I believe all rule changes are supposed to go out for member input. Clarifications, errors/ommissions and classifications do not.

...and Bill, I personally don't care if anyone questions anything the ITAC does. It's a committee and we discuss everything so it's not like it happens in a vacuum. It's your confrontational delivery - all while seemingly continuously going back to past mistakes when none of the current ITAC / CRB were on - that has gotten really harsh lately and people are starting to ignore you.

bldn10

10-08-2007, 08:50 AM

JeffYoung

10-08-2007, 09:38 AM

There is a practical issue here. The ITAC is a volunteer committee with limited time and resources. In doing the work that I did on ITR I quickly realized that the work cuts into REAL work, family time and race time. And is for the most part thankless.

So, it is often impossible to do everything that we would like for the ITAC to do. Running ALL cars through the process was one. Some oddballs got skipped -- Andy and Jake would be the first to tell you that -- to be corrected later if the data was there to do it.

I think most rule changes get debated SOMEWHERE and we always have a mechanism to try and change them if we don't like them. But the point is that the ITAC tries to highlight for us major rule changes. They've been asking us to comment on for them and for the CRB the ECU rule change for a long time.

I agree the system has a lot of room for abuse in it. Totally agree with that. And that we need to protect against the abuses. But I don't see those abuses happening with this group.

Andy Bettencourt

10-08-2007, 09:45 AM

"I believe all rule changes are supposed to go out for member input. Clarifications, errors/ommissions and classifications do not."

And then you've got the Technical Bulletin, which IMO was misused and abused re spherical bearings. That was a rule change and did not go out for member input nor was there any notice. :bash_1_:

[/b]

I disagree. 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). 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. One that didn't go the way I thought it would (meaning how I read the rulebook) but it is what it is.

JeffYoung

10-08-2007, 10:02 AM

To add a bit more detail to the spherical bearings...

Greg solicited a number of us to pony up a few dollars to pay the "advisory opinion" ruling fee to the SCCA to get a ruling that sphericals were not legal. We had the money in, and Greg had the letter/request for a decision written, when the tecnical bulletin came out.

I THINK it was in response to the debate here on this board, and questions that had been put to Jeremy, but I'm not sure. But if I remember this right we never actually got Greg's request in before the decision came done. I don't think that changes the substance of Andy's post if I am correct that the SCCA was reacting to a number of concerns that these things were not legal.

Still think they aren't, but they sure are in my car now.

RSTPerformance

10-08-2007, 10:19 AM

I also e-mailed and talked to several people (Maybe even Jeremy) from the Stewards side asking for clarificatins on spherical bearings and the Pistons in anticipation of multiple mechanical protests... Thankfully somehow the word got out and a clarification was made. Job well done!!!

Raymond "Still feel that the wheel rule is perfect as it is written" Blethen

Greg Amy

10-08-2007, 11:09 AM

...if I remember this right we never actually got Greg's request in before the decision came [down].[/b]
Correct.

My FedEx letter was minutes from being dropped off when I got a courtesy phone call telling me that the decision had already been unilaterally made by the Comp Board to allow/approve/condone spherical suspension bearings in Improved Touring (versus allowing us to go through the published GCR process). I more than suspect this issue was quickly pushed through in advance, with the knowledge that we were going to bring it through the (more public) GCR review process (ever hear of anything else so quickly "clarified" and published?)

I firmly believe if this issue was put to the membership for feedback - as it most certainly should have given that in my opinion it's a blatant disregard of the original intent of the 1984 IT rules - it would have been slapped down. But - again in my opinion - that process was end-run and the Comp Board made a unilateral decision, as they've been given the power to do.

Next time the process happens in secret, with no advance warning.

So, it's all water under the bridge, settled law, blah, blah, blah...you'll never hear me say they're illegal, but you'll also never hear me say they even remotely meet the original intent of the rules. - GA

vr6guy

10-08-2007, 11:22 AM

Im what you would call a "budget minded racer". With that said, because of the budget that I have,(or lack of) I look for ways that I can save money while still being able to race. One of the ways is having an unlimited supply of take off wheels from a friend who once the tires dont feel brand new, are discarded. These tires i could easily run an entire season on. 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. I'm expecting people to jump on this, saying,"if you dont have the money you shouldnt be racing". Well my answer to that is, I love this sport, and I have such a passion for it that it kills me sometimes to be at the track and not be behind the wheel. My first race I went to I was three weeks old. My younger brother was three DAYS old for his first race. Both of those first races were to watch my father race in the 70's and early 80's. If the rule doesnt change then I guess Ill be stuck doin track days, and instructing for SCDA. That is what I call a tragedy, not only for myself, but for scca.

RSTPerformance

10-08-2007, 11:34 AM

vr6guy

10-08-2007, 11:47 AM

going from 14" to 16" is nothing what im talking about. Im in no way bitching either. Production? some of the cars are already there. I guess you dont want another ITB competitor in the northeast

DavidM

10-08-2007, 12:57 PM

I firmly believe if this issue was put to the membership for feedback - as it most certainly should have given that in my opinion it's a blatant disregard of the original intent of the 1984 IT rules - it would have been slapped down.
[/b]

Do you think open ECUs meets the original intent of the IT rules? I say no, but apparently most people think they should be allowed.

David

ScotMac

10-08-2007, 01:09 PM

I'm trying, Scot but I'm still struggling to see past the presentation of what's in it for you.
[/b]

Kirk, one of the worst behaviors in a discussion is to attack the person rather than the points put forth, based on your own perception of what he is thinking, instead of what he actually is saying.

I have not once said anything to promote my own racing campaign in this discussion. In fact, again, i have just bought custom 14x6" wheels. If i was out for myself, i would leave the status quo, since less people would be able to afford what i already have, and it would protect my investment.

However, i instead am putting this forward so that more people can utilize suitable racing wheels, to support the good of IT in general.

Again, by suitable i mean something w/in 6 or 7 lbs of the big budget racing wheels, which are 8lbs.

Actually, 14x7 options are WAY less common than 14x6. Fact.

Point granted. In fact, 15x6 wheels are clearly a hell of a lot LESS common than 14x6, since they are less common than 14x7. So far, the most common size under discussion - setting aside issues relating to the influence of bolt pattern - is without question 14x6.
[/b]

Not true. 14x6 is definitely not the most common wheel of the four sizes (14x6, 14x7, 15x6, 15x7). It is by far 15x7.

Take, for example, customwheelsdirect.com, 1010tires.com, wheelsforless.com, wheelsmaster.com and TiresDelivered.com, just because they have a pretty good search engines, allowing us to search via size.

Note, i did not cherry pick these sites, just used the first five i found that allowed me to do a size based search.

Customwheelsdirect.com
14x6: 50
14x7: 18
15x6: 40
* 15x7: 253 ****

1010tires.com:
14x6: 7
14x7: 2
15x6: 19
* 15x7: 27 ****

www.wheelsforless.com:
14x6: 27
14x7: 9
15x6: 45
* 15x7: 150 ****

Wheelsmaster.com:
14x6: 91
14x7: 25
15x6: 49
* 15x7: 100 ****

TiresDelivered.com:
14x6: 54
14x7: 15
15x6: 11
* 15x7: 244 *****

Exact numbers are different, but proportions are similar, w/ 15x7 wheels being by far the most numerous.

However, that is not the end of the story. As i said, this is about a suitable racing wheel. If the big-budget wheels are 8lbs, then i think it is reasonable to say that a suitable wheel is at max 15lbs, preferably 10-13lbs. This all about attempting to allow the normal budget racer to get close to that big-budget racer, by opening up the supply of suitable wheels to the normal budget racer.

Let's use CustomWheelsDirect.com, since they have the largest supply, and thus are more likely to have suitable rims.

Customwheelsdirect.com, 14x6: 50 are returned, w/ the following 15lbs or less:

AmerRacing, Type SR : discontinued, both factory and dealers do not have stock
Maxxim, Oxygen : discontinued, and NOT available
Motegi, MR7, RT5 : discontinued, both factory and dealers do not have stock
TSW, Volcano : discontinued, factory has *one*, 15lbs
AmerRacing, Silverstone 401: none available, but factory custom build, which takes 6 weeks, and is only available in 3 1/4" backspacing, 14.5lbs in 15x7

CustomWheelsDirect.com, 15x6: 40 are returned, w/ the following 15lbs or less:

AmerRacing, Silverstone 401: none available, but factory custom build, which takes 6 weeks, and is only available in 3 1/4" backspacing, 14.5lbs in 15x7

Customwheelsdirect.com, 14x7: 18 wheels returned, w/ the following 15lbs or less:

AmerRacing, Silverstone 401: none available, but factory custom build, which takes 6 weeks, and is only available in 3 1/4" backspacing, 14.5lbs in 15x7
Koniq Rewind Graphite: check avail (13lbs)
TeamDyn, Pro Race 1.2: Available

CustomWheelsDirect.com, 15x7: 253 wheels returned, w/ the following 15lbs or less:
5Zigen, FN01R: Available 13.5lbs
5Zigen, GN+: Available 15lbs
Enkei, RPF1: Available 9.9lbs
Enkei, RPO-j: discontinued
Intro, Emotion: Available, 14lbs (factory will make)
Intro, GT Sport: Available, 14lbs (factory will make)
Intro, Rockman: Available, 14lbs (factory will make)
Motegi, LC5: check avail 12.5lb
Motegi, Trak Lite 1: Available 10.5lbs
Motegi, Trak Lite 2: Available 10lbs
SportMax, type940: Available 15.5lbs
SportMax, type941: Available 15.5lbs
TeamDyn, ProRace 1.2: Available 15.1lbs
TeamDyn, ProRace 1 : Available 13.2lbs
TeamDyn, ProRace 2 : Available 13.2lbs
TSW, Volcano: Available 15lbs

Just for kicks, i also threw in the 6.5 wheels, though i didn't check all the exact weights and availability.

CustomWheelsDirect.com, 15x6.5: 105 wheels returned, w/ the following possibly less than 16lbs:

ADR, Flite 4
AmerRacing, type SR
Enkei, JS+M
Enkei, RS 5
Enkei, RS 6
Enkei, SC03
Konig, Britelite
Konig, Feather
Konig, Helium
Konig, Trouble
Maxxim, Black
Maxxim, Ahead
Motegi, Trak Lite
TSW,Volcano

-Scot

RSTPerformance

10-08-2007, 01:11 PM

going from 14" to 16" is nothing what im talking about. Im in no way bitching either. Production? some of the cars are already there. I guess you dont want another ITB competitor in the northeast
[/b]

I would love to see another competitor, but if you want this changed, I can only imagine what is next on your agenda... The people that want changes never seem to stop wanting changes, and generally with a few exceptions to help themselves.

I built my car with the expectations that rules would stay the same, and I would imagine that you or someone else on a budget would be doing the same... In the short term you might have to spend some on wheels/tires, but in the long run rules consistancy would maintain a cheeper class for most of us.

Raymond

PS: Scot- Do you think that the budget racer is going that much faster because thier wheel weighs 5lbs less??? I don't buy it. I run the same lap times with heavy wheels or light wheels, I picked my wheels because they look "pimp" not because of weight, but hey, maybe thats why we are top 5 and not top dog...

Anyone ever run a car on a dyno or some other machine to get some factual number differences with wheel weight differences?

JeffYoung

10-08-2007, 01:15 PM

David, I think there is actually far more agreement on the facts of the ECU situation than on what to do about it.

Specifically:

1. I think that everyone agrees policing ECUs is a difficult if not impossible process.

2. I think everyone agrees that open ECUs are certainly not in conformity with the letter, spirit or intent of the original IT ruleset.

3. I think everyone agrees the "open ECUs in the stock box" rules was a really bad, really bad band-aid.

The question is -- now what do we do?

1. Since we have opened Pandora's box just a crack, should we go ahead and open it all the way to make the open ECU rule accessible to all instead of just those who can spend big bucks to get a new computer in the stock box and make it work with stock sensors?

2. Do we stuff the sh$t back in Pandora's box and require stock ECUs?

3. And if we do that (stock ECUs), do we allow reflashes (which is just another crack in the box that will in some cases give people with the time, money and resources, and the right car, free ECUs)?

It's a tough question, and I'm biased as I am building an FI motor that will need to take advantage of the new rule. Keeping that bias in mind, I just see (a) no way to go back to stock ECUs and (B) the existing rule as silly.

My position is admittedly a "me" position in that the new rule could benefit me greatly. But, I think the consideratioins I lay out above are what we all need to be thinking about.

Andy Bettencourt

10-08-2007, 02:04 PM

Do you think open ECUs meets the original intent of the IT rules? I say no, but apparently most people think they should be allowed.

David [/b]

I do NOT think open ECU's meet the original intent of the rule. BUT - it's a situation that has numerous angles and hitches. Now that technology has presented us some 'affordable' options on the market, *I* think the best thing to do from a 10,000 ft view is to open it up. No performance increases at the top end from what we have now, more people can now afford the technology, and the impossible task of policing stock units is gone...and let me tell you - if you go to reflashes and chips - the gap between the have's and have-not's balloons way out of control.

The situation sucks yes, but like I said, I think this is the smallest pile of crap of the 3 piles we have to choose from.

Greg Amy

10-08-2007, 02:28 PM

1. I think that everyone agrees policing ECUs is a difficult if not impossible process.
2. I think everyone agrees that open ECUs are certainly not in conformity with the letter, spirit or intent of the original IT ruleset.
3. I think everyone agrees the "open ECUs in the stock box" rules was a really bad, really bad band-aid.
The question is -- now what do we do? [/b]
Well, isn't it a bit too late for that question...? ;)

I never really had a hard opinion on this issue. But the more I think about it, the more I want to lean towards the possibility of someone cheating with a stock ECU versus the probabilities of what someone can do with an open ECU. The performance significance of an cheater with an illegal ECU (visually unmolested but electronically altered) seems far, far less than the performance significance of a legal car with an all-out, no-holds-barred engine management system. The only difference is that one's a cheater, one's not.

Or said differently, I'd rather deal with the possibility (probability?) a cheater than someone with deep pockets...I'm becoming less and less fond of the idea of allowing "unpoliceable" modifications. Just 'cause "it's not detectable" (copyright 2007, SpecMiata.com) doesn't mean it should be approved officially.

But, as noted, it's probably too late for that... - GA

Knestis

10-08-2007, 02:46 PM

Kirk, one of the worst behaviors in a discussion is to attack the person rather than the points put forth, based on your own perception of what he is thinking, instead of what he actually is saying.[/b]
Again, it's not about you. It's the way I have been trained to look at things:

The term "symbolic interaction" refers, of course, to the peculiar and distinctive character of interaction as it takes place between human beings. The peculiarity consists in the fact that human beings interpret or "define" each other's actions instead of merely reacting to each other's actions. Their "response" is not made directly to the actions of one another but instead is based on the meaning which they attach to such actions. Thus, human interaction is mediated by the use of symbols, by interpretation, or by ascertaining the meaning of one another's actions. This mediation is equivalent to inserting a process of interpretation between stimulus and response in the case of human behavior. (Blumer)

My interpretations are based on my experiences with racers in general, not with you. Policy should really be made based on that kind of perspective - or some similar approach - although I admit that my orientation creates certain biases.

...by suitable i mean something w/in 6 or 7 lbs of the big budget racing wheels, which are 8lbs.[/b]
Again, the ITAC/CRB has no obligation to any subgroup of racers (make, model, geography, etc.) to help them be competitive. Affording a light racing wheel for less money than might otherwise be obtained IS helping them be competitive. If a rule truly impacts everyone equally, then of course this isn't an issue but that doesn't happen very often, even in cases where arguments are presented as being for the good of the category.

14x6 is definitely not the most common wheel of the four sizes (14x6, 14x7, 15x6, 15x7). It is by far 15x7.[/b]
Oh, no question! And I didn't mean to imply that I believed otherwise. My point is that arguments for the 15x7 option were based on the much less available 15x6 size, when 14x6 is a still viable solution currently allowed by the rules. I meant what I said (in a roundabout fashion, perhaps) - that the 14x6 is more common than either the 15x6 or 14x7.If the justification for the 15x7 is "can't find 15x6," then the first solution should be to use 14x6s, rather than changing the rules to allow 15x7, since it is ALLOWED to go +1, not REQUIRED.

Now, the New Beetle peeps ARE in deep doo-doo but one assumes that they'd know what they're in for when choosing that option.

K

PS - If any of you camel nose "deniers" are out there, make note of how the recent allowance of increased diameter wheels in IT is being used as justification for an increase in width - not even a year out. THAT'S rules creep at work and it's making me regret taking a pro position on that allowance, after the fact...

JeffYoung

10-08-2007, 02:47 PM

Greg, that makes sense except for...what about the cheater with deep pockets? They guy who runs the full on EMS in a stock appearing box with stock electronics. Can be done probably with $$$$$. Probably was done before ECUs were opened up.

This seems to me to be a grudging rule change to even the playing field as much as possible, making it easier for everyone to take advantage of what before only those with unlimited resources could. In that regard, and while I believe it contrary to class intent, I find it the easiest to digest of the choices.

And of course, it benefits ME. ME!

vr6guy

10-08-2007, 03:00 PM

Ive watched improved touring go from ex ss cars which are no longer competitive. With bolt in cages, stock suspension, and or trunk kits, full interiors, mandatory passenger seat. Now we have coil overs, with remote reservoirs, soon to be open ecu, open exhaust,(within db ratings of course), stripped interiors,(its safer). 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. I went through the same thing my father went through during his racing career. People wondering how he went so fast with a considerable less amount of HP,(1986 gt-4 510's averaged over 200 whp, while my father had only 160 whp). My father is a highly respected national chief steward, who took this past year off for a number of reasons. Mostly beacuse of the way the "club" has become, and all the politics. Im not saying anyone is to blame here, only that we all remember why we all race. We are not pro, nor will alot of us ever want that in life.

p.s.
im not the person that will stop at nothing to get more and more rule changes
this is a is a simplistic topic of supply and demand....... someone posted the availability of 15x6 rims compared to 15x7 rims..... look at it, and actually put some thought about it. thats all i ask

oh and raymond, I know you have put alot of money and time into your cars(I remember when the audis were both white) and i would never not give you credit for that. Im just sayin that one inch shouldnt make a race car driver sit out another year..... or maybe ill just get the 15x7s and run ITE

no bashing please

Marc Rider
1990 vw gti
Bildon race car

Greg Amy

10-08-2007, 03:17 PM

...what about the cheater with deep pockets?[/b]
There are far, far fewer opportunities for chasms in performance by cheating within the architecture of a stock box, than there are with open hardware.

The guy who runs the full on EMS in a stock appearing box with stock electronics.[/b]
"Stock-appearing"? You mean the original housing? Or are you implying someone will use the stock motherboard, stock chip, stock soldering, stock caps, stock resistors (all easily and visually detectable by removing four or so cover screws) and brew up some Motec-killer while using all those original electronics? I won't go so far as to say it "can't" be done, but you can only go so far with the stock board and electronics, even if you're a mad scientist with an electron microscope and you find a way to micro-encode your own Cray supercomputer inside the confines of the original motorola chipset.

Then, of course, you can only connect through the car with the stock wiring harness (but then there's the guy that'll engineer a high-speed network within the confines of the wiring harness, using the rear tail light bulbs as a SAN storage system...)

We deal with those guys the same way we deal with cheaters who do other things we can't easily detect with a cursory glance (e.g., pop-up pistons, oversize valves, porting/polishing, shaved heads, illegal cams, illegal gearsets, etc): we protest them. to say we can't police physically-manipulated ECUs is to say we can't control our existing ruleset in other regards.

And please allow me to reiterate: there's only so much performance gain one can get with purely-electronically-manipulated ECUs, far less than what we're proposing with open architecture.

This seems to me to be a grudging rule change to even the playing field as much as possible...[/b]
I hope that this has never a case of trying to "even the playing field"; to fall into that mindset is to fall into a never-ending trap. If you want to even the playing field to its nth degree, remove rules restrictions entirely, and that way everyone is even...

It's vitally important that as rulesmakers your core belief for such a rule - and the original stated reason for the change - is that you're believing people are cheating and you believe it cannot be policed, ergo it must be allowed. I do not agree with that mindset, but that's the only way I can justify it in my mind (well, except for "I want it".) Even then, that's another trap, which can lean towards such things as allowing balancing and blueprinting in Spec Miata, for example.

You will never be able to "even a playing field" when money is involved. NEVER.

...making it easier for everyone to take advantage of what before only those with unlimited resources could.[/b]
Rhetorical question: do you truly believe an open ruleset hands opportunities to those that do not have unlimited resources while limiting opportunities for those that do, bringing both in parity? Or do you believe that someone with unlimited resources will easily take advantage of the new opportunities and increase that chasm further? See my "open ruleset" example above.

We're starting to re-hash old discussions here, and I really don't want to. What's done is done, time to let the chips fall. But I truly, honestly hope that this change wasn't made for the wrong reasons...and I'm beginning to believe this is one of those decisions we're all going to regret later, just as we did that very moment we each individually learned about Motec-in-a-box (I remember that moment well...) - GA

JeffYoung

10-08-2007, 04:00 PM

Your points are valid, but I would say that yes, the rules makers and many of the unwashed masses (among whom I count myself) proposed this/supported this/"voted" for this because of the various choices available it seemed to be the most equitable to all.

I guess where I have some issue with your post -- which as always is well thought out -- is this. We always use the concept of fairness as the basis of rules creation or rules changes, whether we admit it or not. For example, what was the "reason" for the change from creation of ad hoc weights for cars to a system? Repeatability? Yes. Openess? Yes. But the fundamental reason was fairness and as level a playing field as possible with the constraints of the IT paradigm.

The same is true with the selection amongst the three "bad" ECU choices. Given the three choices, open ECUs are probably the "fairest" to all.

But at the same time, they are the furthest outside the IT paradigm and that is where a lot of us who support them have some pretty severe heartburn.

RacerBill

10-08-2007, 04:22 PM

... Do you think that the budget racer is going that much faster because thier wheel weighs 5lbs less??? I don't buy it.
[/b]

I ain't looking to go faster. I'll be 62 years old next year and humping 42+ lbs of wheel and tire on and off the car is not getign any easier!!!!!!!!

:D :D :D

BTW, I don't have a huge supply of 15x7's to get rid off. All of the 18+ wheels I have are 15x6 ( I think they are some sort of lead alloy!!!!) :D :D :D

Seriously, I can see both sides of the issue on 6" vs 7" wheels. I would be satisfied with 6.5" wheels.

Looking forward again to the IT Fest, and if things go well, maybe even the ARRC next year!

Oh, no question! And I didn't mean to imply that I believed otherwise. My point is that arguments for the 15x7 option were based on the much less available 15x6 size, when 14x6 is a still viable solution currently allowed by the rules. I meant what I said (in a roundabout fashion, perhaps) - that the 14x6 is more common than either the 15x6 or 14x7.If the justification for the 15x7 is "can't find 15x6," then the first solution should be to use 14x6s, rather than changing the rules to allow 15x7, since it is ALLOWED to go +1, not REQUIRED.

K

[/b]

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.

I realize that this is just one car out of many.

Ain't going to keep me from racing, though.

RSTPerformance

10-08-2007, 04:42 PM

Ive watched improved touring go from ex ss cars which are no longer competitive. With bolt in cages, stock suspension, and or trunk kits, full interiors, mandatory passenger seat. Now we have coil overs, with remote reservoirs, soon to be open ecu, open exhaust,(within db ratings of course), stripped interiors,(its safer). 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.
[/b]
The progression above is also something I have seen... although the Remote reservoirs are not legal anymore (interesting huh)... as for some of the other stuff, it cost nothing to remove parts and not replace (interiors) and I don't ever remember a quite IT car, but then again my brother was always crying next to me in the strolers because I was always beating him ;)... If I was around back when coil overs were introduced I probably would have been against them as well. Look at them now, it is something you could not feasibly live without on most cars. I am 100% against the Open ECU rule. Basically the rules as written could work, and I think we need to stop "building" these cars bigger and better in the rules process, and put a limit at some point... We all know the end of IT as we know it is when they finnaly give up the battle on washer bottles and battery location.

or maybe ill just get the 15x7s and run ITE
[/b]

I ran SPU this past weekend in my brothers car and it was a blast. I got to beat up on EP, FP, and GP cars. I would have run ITE but then I would have been runnig with all the big bore GT stuff where I had absolutely no chance at having fun... I know you were joking but their are a lot of other options besides IT where you could have fun...

At anyrate, I am sorry if I am coming across as bashing, I respect those that want change especially to save money but I am just not into the ECU or wheel thing yet.

Raymond "Sometimes I wish it were still the 80's, when Capri's, RX3's, 2002's and Corvairs were ruling ITA" Blethen

ScotMac

10-08-2007, 05:43 PM

Again, it's not about you. It's the way I have been trained to look at things:

- although I admit that my orientation creates certain biases.

[/b]

Yes, and in this case your biases are incorrect. You are interpreting what i am saying based on your own biases, and those biases are leading to an incorrect conclusion. As i stated, this has nothing to do w/ a benefit for me, other than the benefit of making IT more healthy for everyone, me included.

Again, the ITAC/CRB has no obligation to any subgroup of racers (make, model, geography, etc.) to help them be competitive. Affording a light racing wheel for less money than might otherwise be obtained IS helping them be competitive. If a rule truly impacts everyone equally, then of course this isn't an issue but that doesn't happen very often, even in cases where arguments are presented as being for the good of the category.
[/b]

As Josh and i noted, the rule is neutral. It does not make one group more competitive, and simply allows *all* the B and C racers to take advantage of greater supply of appropriate wheels.

Oh, no question! And I didn't mean to imply that I believed otherwise. My point is that arguments for the 15x7 option were based on the much less available 15x6 size, when 14x6 is a still viable solution currently allowed by the rules. I meant what I said (in a roundabout fashion, perhaps) - that the 14x6 is more common than either the 15x6 or 14x7.If the justification for the 15x7 is "can't find 15x6," then the first solution should be to use 14x6s, rather than changing the rules to allow 15x7, since it is ALLOWED to go +1, not REQUIRED.
[/b]

Oh, you did very much imply that 14x6 was the most available. Yes, it is instead 15x7, which is very much part of this discussion, since we are discussing allowing 7" rims for B and C.

I disagree that the supply of the 14x6 rims is enough for the B and C racers. It is not, as my research in my previous post clearly pointed it. It is only marginally greater than the supply of 15x6 and 14x7. Also, my point is not one size versus another, as you seem to bring up, but simply that B and C taking advantage of the greater supply of 7" rims (15x7) will encourage more racers to participate in a less expensive manner.

PS - If any of you camel nose "deniers" are out there, make note of how the recent allowance of increased diameter wheels in IT is being used as justification for an increase in width - not even a year out. THAT'S rules creep at work and it's making me regret taking a pro position on that allowance, after the fact...
[/b]

Again, you need to read what i have said. I did NOT use the increased diameter as a justification for this change. This change is valid on it's own right. What i was saying is that the arguments used for increased diameter apply here, since they are both about supply (the same supply, in fact).

PS: Scot- Do you think that the budget racer is going that much faster because thier wheel weighs 5lbs less??? I don't buy it. I run the same lap times with heavy wheels or light wheels, I picked my wheels because they look "pimp" not because of weight, but hey, maybe thats why we are top 5 and not top dog...

[/b]

Yes, he definitely is faster, if every wheel is 5lbs lighter. We are talking improved acceleration, and lower unsprung weight...concepts that are unequivocally performance enhancing. Even more so for the big-budget racer that is running 8lb wheels vs low-budget racer that has been relegated to 18-20lb stock wheels (10lb difference/corner).

And Kirk, please quit trying hide behind the "we do not ensure the competiveness of any car" argument. It does not apply. This is not about a particular car. This increases the supply for everyone, not a particular car, sub-group, region, ...

I will give you that this proposal attempts to level the field between the big-budget and the low-budget racer, but that is an admirable goal, and no amount of your trying to *SPIN* it as "we do not ensure the competitiveness ..." will change that. :eclipsee_steering:

Renaultfool

10-08-2007, 06:32 PM

I find it interesting that some of the group think the open ECU thing will kill the class.
I think it will save the class by allowing more competitive cars. If that is competitive adjustment so be it. The fields are smaller each year, we must do something.

Drag racing had to change because they almost priced themselves out of existance with the specific rule/car type of approach. They went with bracket racing in which you could do anything you wanted to your car, just say which bracket you would run.

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. IT needs to remain a class where someone can build a car, out of junkyard parts if necessary, and have a chance to compete.

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.

If you don't make it cheaper and simpler for them to get involved they won't come.

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.

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.

JeffYoung

10-08-2007, 06:41 PM

Several ITR cars can be had for less than $5k (300ZX, Contour SVT, etc.)

Most can be had for less than $10k (968, 944S2, various BMWs, etc.)

Almost all can be had for less than $20k.

You can get an R car on track for about the same cost as in S, if you pick the right model. Doing away with R, which is in my view one of the biggest advancements we've had in many years, is not the solution to what ails B and C. No one contemplating road racing is choosing R over B and C or vicey-versey.

But you make a valid point about where are the Kias, etc. in B and C? Kirk has addressed this in the past. Is it:

1. The owners of those cars have no real desire to race them?

2. Owners of those cars don't ahve the resources to race?

Others?

I am more and more becoming convinced that the savior of B is the 1st Gen RX7. Lots of folks disagree but I see a lot of race cars out there that could be put in that class, be competitive and could get the car counts up. That might result in more folks looking at B as a viable option again and building other B cars.

I think that is what you need right now in B -- an injection of already existing race cars to make the class more attractive to all. I will admit that when I started looking at racing SCCA, I considered B (because of the TR7 being classed there, yes I am an idiot) and the car counts in my region in B turned me off to B.

C is probably dead. I don't see any real way to revive that class. Just aren't that many 60-80 whp cars out there, and more importantly no people who want to race them.