Wheel width, ITB, again

[Knestis]

Matt, on Labor Day I'll buy you a beer and we can throw rocks at your 7" wide rims together. :D I don't think anyone will say one would or should be happy with the money they spent on 7" rims. If someone is looking to become as competitive as possible, I do think that sorrow lesses as they have been given a new lease on life even if it comes with a sacrifice. The rims people have in this size are not worthless. Sell them. Yes, still not perfect and I do feel bad that step is necessary. Just one more thing to worry about. Then again. :smilie_pokal: That would never be a possiblity if the car remained in ITA.

Just curious. Did any of the Shelby owners write to the ITAC voicing that they'd want their cars to remain in ITA? Was there an effort to get other owners to do the same?



We did have some Shelby owners send letters to the Board voicing their opposition to the move.

K

[Greg Amy]

I think I've finally fixed on a position for myself.
Given your "sunset clause" position, I infer that your position on the issue for those that wish to run 7" wheels due to price/availability of 6" (or, simply just want to run 7" outright in ITB/ITC) is "no bueno"? - GA

[StephenB]

I am in fovor of kirks position on this! :happy204:

I do have an honest question for anyone on the ITAC that may be lurking here... I must be missing something. Why don't we allow Dual Classification? Kirk why are you suggesting keeping the dual classification to 2 years? I would think that we could leave all cars classified as they were (yes uncompetitive if that was the case) and let the drivers of the Car/Make decide what run group they want to run in. We may even get some people to "double Dip" if ITA and ITB are in different run groups. The only difference in rules are the wheel width and weight correct? Seems as though letting them run forever in both classes wouldn't hurt the class... or would it?

Thanks,
Stephen

[quadzjr]

+2 for Kirks solution.

I didn't think about people being able to double dip in a weekend by changing tires and ballast.

Though I am not on the ITAC, I think allowing indefinet dual classifications for these newly classed cars is a bad idea.. otherwise to be fair you would have to open it up to all cars re-classed previously

[ekim952522000]

+3 for Kirk's solution

[dickita15]

Good job Kirk although I do agree with Stephan, (did I really say that :D ). I really don’t see the problem with dual classification without the sunset.

[ekim952522000]

I think the problem with dual classification is really upping the work for the ITAC which they already have plenty of.

[lateapex911]

We did have some Shelby owners send letters to the Board voicing their opposition to the move.

K

IIRC, we had multiple letters, and I thought we had two letters from the same person opposing it. We had more for the move than against by a fair margin. It was on the books and in discussion for a loooong time. Like over a year, IIIRC.

[lateapex911]

what happened to the poll? Earlier it showed 115% as the "total", now the graphics are messed up... odd.

I agree the two year dual class is the best option for the cars being moved across lines of wheel change.

[JoshS]

I hate dual classifications. I hate that it's hard for anyone who isn't totally in tune with the IT ruleset (that is, potential IT competitors) to understand what the classing is all about.

It's bad enough when the same car is in multiple classes with different engines, and it's even worse when it's in different classes with the same engine.

Let me ask a question -- if there were no wheel size differences between classes, and the only difference in two classes was weight ... would you all be asking for dual classifications? Why? The only reason in my opinion would be to allow double-dipping for clubs where the two classes don't run in the same group, and I don't think classing decisions should be made at the national level for regional concerns (race groupings).

(Full disclosure: here in San Francisco Region all of the IT classes run together in the same race group.)

[GKR_17]

Solution - The answer is already in the rules - almost - and has been clarified by the recent remote-reservoir shock clarification: Clarify the language to make it explicit that if aftermarket wheels are used, they must conform to the current rules but that it is NOT required to change any stock part except to meet safety rules - including wheels.


I agree with the concept, but be careful - with wording like that it could be argued that the ABS systems don't have to be diabled.

[dickita15]

Let me ask a question -- if there were no wheel size differences between classes, and the only difference in two classes was weight ... would you all be asking for dual classifications? Why?

Another possible reason for a dual classification is there are a lot of existing cars that are built heavy so they would be just as happy in the slower class at a higher weight. Take the case of the ITA Rx7. It really is a tweener in my book yet when discussed about half wanted to move to B and half wanted to stay in A. dual classification would allow both sides to get what they want and as you pointed out there are so many body styles that can race in more than one class that I really think “Fan Confusion” is a weak argument.

[lateapex911]

I hate dual classifications. I hate that it's hard for anyone who isn't totally in tune with the IT ruleset (that is, potential IT competitors) to understand what the classing is all about.


For the 8 fans that are on the hill, I can deal with it in the very rare (1-2% of the cars listed?) case. FoOr the potential competitor, if they can't grasp that, the whole racing hill is going to be waaaay too steep for them.

Really, we have no fans, and we're only talking about DC-ing a tiny portion of the cars listed. And it would make life a lot easier for certain people.

[Knestis]

Given your "sunset clause" position, I infer that your position on the issue for those that wish to run 7" wheels due to price/availability of 6" (or, simply just want to run 7" outright in ITB/ITC) is "no bueno"? - GA

You infer correctly. I'm just not there. (Maybe add a "yet" to that statement.)

That's the THIRD problem in the mix and I can't make the benefit/cost math work out in a way that I can support it. I think we may be headed that direction but I don't think it's a pervasive enough problem yet, to warrant that large of a change.

K

[Knestis]

I agree with the concept, but be careful - with wording like that it could be argued that the ABS systems don't have to be diabled.

Looking at the even bigger picture, I've believed that we should be allowed to keep ABS since I came back to the game 5 years ago. That's another conversation though, and I don't worry about the required language in that respect.


EDIT - On dual classification more generally, I just think it's a bad idea. Every time it comes up, it's proposed as a solution to problem being experienced by a small number of cases. Want to double dip? Ask your region and they'll find a way to take your money. Hurt by a reclassification? I feel for you but, while we might have an obligation to ease the transition, we can't let individual issues stand in the way of a cohesive category.

If we DC a car that gets moved, we create two revised ITCS entries (one in each class) following review). If it's OK to DC a car in that kind of case, it should be OK to DC a tweener, right? We've got lots of potential tweeners. If I see a MkIII Golf in my mirrors right now, I can be sure it's in my class. But it's a potential tweener, so that might be a C car. And what if the reason my particular car is a tweener is that I weigh 400# (or 120# for that matter)? Dual classify my car so I don't have to add a bunch of ballast, or because I can't get to the class minimum.

And we've already suggested that a car that's dual classified might differ not just in weight, but in wheel size. And the (ugh) e36 example adds "restrictor" to that list. How about dual classification for "showroom stock" drivetrains? (Don't laugh: It's been mentioned.)

It's a first principle of our whole approach that there is a "right" classification and weight for each car, based on assumptions and practices applied by the ITAC. To suggest that there are TWO equally right answers flys in the face of that, to my way of thinking. Yeah, some of them are close ot the line but that's not enough of a rationale for the additional confusion. And yes - I AM projecting how the next iteration of that thinking will manifest itself. (See also, NASA PT.)

K

[JoshS]

For the 8 fans that are on the hill, I can deal with it in the very rare (1-2% of the cars listed?) case. FoOr the potential competitor, if they can't grasp that, the whole racing hill is going to be waaaay too steep for them.

Really, we have no fans, and we're only talking about DC-ing a tiny portion of the cars listed. And it would make life a lot easier for certain people.

I didn't talk about fans. We don't have fans. It's about potential IT competitors, and guess who they are? They are people racing with other organizations, or even SCCA racers who race in other classes.

[JoshS]

Looking at the even bigger picture, I've believed that we should be allowed to keep ABS since I came back to the game 5 years ago. That's another conversation though, and I don't worry about the required language in that respect.

Me too. It would probably get an adder in some classes (because cars with ABS might brake "better than the norm.") Different than the norm is the baseline requirement for an adder.

I recently made a list of all of the things in the ITCS that are "must" rules as opposed to "may" rules. There really aren't that many that are performance-related and I think it would be good to try to minimize them.

In case you are curious as I was, those rules are below. In all of these cases it can be imagined that some cars in their stock trim might not meet the specifications of the rule. In a perfect world, these would all be amended "unless configured this way from the factory" and things that have a performance advantage, if really a big difference from the class norm, would qualify for an adder.

4.f, 6.c: Wheel speed sensors disconnected (traction control, ABS)
5.a.1: Min ride height 5"
5.b.1, 5.b.2: shocks/struts: max 2 adjustments, no RR, no adjustments while car in motion
5.b.3: No two-part coil springs
5.c.1: Traction bars must be one piece
7.a.1, 7.a.6: Wheel diameter & width
7.a.4: Tread must be under fender
8.b: Front spoiler dimensions/openings
8.c: Nothing lower than wheel

And safety-related ones, which I think should be moved to from the ITCS to the core GCR:
8.f: Convertible tops removed, hardtop mounts replaced, sunroofs secured/removed
9.a: Driver's seat replaced with racing seat
9.b: No wood steering wheels
10.c: Airbags disarmed

[Bill Miller]

Why am I letting myself get sucked into this again???



It's a first principle of our whole approach that there is a "right" classification and weight for each car, based on assumptions and practices applied by the ITAC. To suggest that there are TWO equally right answers flys in the face of that, to my way of thinking. Yeah, some of them are close ot the line but that's not enough of a rationale for the additional confusion. And yes - I AM projecting how the next iteration of that thinking will manifest itself. (See also, NASA PT.)

Kirk,

I respectfully disagree. I'll use the New Beetle as the example. I'll argue that the pig-heavy ITC weight (2850# IIRC) is not the 'right' weight, as evidenced by the fact that nobody is building them. Why is it that that car is viewed as not being able to make the ITB weight, when the Mk IV Jetta (which starts out heavier) is? A Mk I Rabbit GTI in ITC @ 2250# is not the 'right' weight? Why not? What makes that less 'right' [sic] than 2080# in ITB? Is it because the car has run in ITB for so long?

I used to support the idea of DC, but the more I think about it, the more I think it's probably not the best thing for the category as a whole, in the long term. I think double-dipping is actually a good thing, and has the ability to bring more people to the track. But that's one of the only real upsides I see.

As far as throwing the ITA > ITB cars a bone, I'd much rather see you let them run the 7" wheels for 2 years w/ an extra 100# penalty, than give them the 2 year DC option. One way to look at the 2 year DC option is "Hey, we're trying to help you, but if you don't want to suck it up and buy new wheels, you can spend the next 2 years running around at the back like you always did. But please keep bringing your car to the track and paying your entry fees."

I think the real people that DC causes problems for is the tech people at the track. "Wait, what class is that car running in? What's it supposed to weigh? What kind of wheels can it run?" At least if you give them the weight for 2 years, you eliminate the first question.

Either that, or just let that car run 7" wheels in ITB forever, and set the weight appropriately. The more I think about it, that's what I think is the best appoach. It eliminates all of the above questions. For the handful of cars you're talking about, it's not the end of the world to have spec line allowances. As I said before, you've already got them. See the Del Sol / MR2 rear window rule, the Quad 4 car rear brake rule, the BMW trunk mounted cell rule, etc. etc.

[dickita15]

It's a first principle of our whole approach that there is a "right" classification and weight for each car, based on assumptions and practices applied by the ITAC. To suggest that there are TWO equally right answers flys in the face of that, to my way of thinking. Yeah, some of them are close ot the line but that's not enough of a rationale for the additional confusion. And yes - I AM projecting how the next iteration of that thinking will manifest itself. (See also, NASA PT.)

K

I agree with Bill that there might not always be a right call. The ITAC are umpires, and good umpires I think, and they make the best calls they can but that does not mean the call was always right. Why not let competitors make their own call. After all both classifications comply with the process.

[Knestis]

... I'll argue that the pig-heavy ITC weight (2850# IIRC) is not the 'right' weight, as evidenced by the fact that nobody is building them. Why is it that that car is viewed as not being able to make the ITB weight, when the Mk IV Jetta (which starts out heavier) ...

... As I said before, you've already got [line item exceptions]. See the Del Sol / MR2 rear window rule, the Quad 4 car rear brake rule, the BMW trunk mounted cell rule, etc. etc.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing here. Maybe I confused the conversation by using the word "right" but that's how we see it: There's one class and spec that makes the most sense, given the math we do. We've debated the "nobody is building one" indicator - most recently when Cameron requested that it be considered for movement to B - but we can't really look at it that way. We let the numbers make the decision rather than trying to engineer popularity.

We simply didn't believe that the NB could make it's spec weight in B. (It's at 2760 in C.) We were convinced that the Golf IV COULD make weight. The Jetta IV isn't listed but given how close the Golf seemed to be, I'd be a little surprised if we determined it should go with the Golf rather than the NB.

On the spec line exception examples, most of the ITAC members would LOVE to make all of them go away, except for where specific designs make safety exceptions necessary. Regardless, the exception does not set a precedent.

K

[JoshS]

We've debated the "nobody is building one" indicator - most recently when Cameron requested that it be considered for movement to B - but we can't really look at it that way. We let the numbers make the decision rather than trying to engineer popularity.

If we looked at it that way, we'd just add weight to most of the ITR cars and put them in ITS, since apparently no one wants to build them in R. In fact, we'd have to move most of the IT listings, because since no one is building one, it must be in the wrong class.

It's just a huge leap to conclude that no one is building a Beetle because they don't like the classification in C.

[Bill Miller]

I don't think we're actually disagreeing here. Maybe I confused the conversation by using the word "right" but that's how we see it: There's one class and spec that makes the most sense, given the math we do. We've debated the "nobody is building one" indicator - most recently when Cameron requested that it be considered for movement to B - but we can't really look at it that way. We let the numbers make the decision rather than trying to engineer popularity.

We simply didn't believe that the NB could make it's spec weight in B. (It's at 2760 in C.) We were convinced that the Golf IV COULD make weight. The Jetta IV isn't listed but given how close the Golf seemed to be, I'd be a little surprised if we determined it should go with the Golf rather than the NB.

On the spec line exception examples, most of the ITAC members would LOVE to make all of them go away, except for where specific designs make safety exceptions necessary. Regardless, the exception does not set a precedent.

K

Well Kirk, you could say that the numbers are trying to make the decision. The number being the zero that have been built since it was classified. And I'm sorry, but I don't see how a Rabbit GTI @ 2080# in ITB 'makes more sense' than a Rabbit GTI @ 2250# in ITC. I'm not saying that the ITC classification makes more sense than the ITB classification. I just don't understand how you can say one makes more sense than the other. It should be competitive in both classes at the respective weight (w/in the limits of the process).

And do I understand you right, the Mk IV Golf is in ITB, yet you're considering putting the Mk IV Jetta in ITC? If that's the case, you'll be creating the only example (AFAIK) in all of Club Racing where the same car is in two different classes (in the same category) based solely on a difference in body configuration (hatchback vs. sedan). Think about how that's going to look to an outsider looking in.


It's just a huge leap to conclude that no one is building a Beetle because they don't like the classification in C. I don't think so Josh. Otherwise, why would someone have requested it be moved to B? You've got someone telling you that they don't feel the car belongs in C, so it's barely a leap, much less a huge one.


If we looked at it that way, we'd just add weight to most of the ITR cars and put them in ITS, since apparently no one wants to build them in RJosh, please explain this logic. You'd add weight to an R car and move it to S because people aren't building them for R because maybe they think they're too heavy for R. How can someone requesting a car be moved from a lower class to a higher class (at a lower weight) because they feel that it's too heavy in the lower class be even remotely similar to moving a car from a higher class to a lower class and adding weight, unless a) they feel that they can't get to the R weight, or b) they feel that the R weight is already too high (don't know how moving it to S would fix that). Not to mention that comparing adding one car to an existing class to a whole new class, w/ a large list of cars that no one has built yet is not even close to being an apples to apples comparrison.

[JoshS]

I don't think so Josh. Otherwise, why would someone have requested it be moved to B? You've got someone telling you that they don't feel the car belongs in C, so it's barely a leap, much less a huge one.
You're right Bill, there's one example. And is rationale as I recall is primarily that there's no competition in C, not that the car isn't classed right in C.

Anyway, the point is that there are lots of cars that are not being built right now. Lots of them. In fact, there aren't very many cars being built right now at all, what with the economy the way it is. Does it really make sense to conclude anything about classing based on the number of active builds of each listing?

[lateapex911]

Josh is right...the requester has no interest in the car in ITC. No racing in C. Well, maybe that's a mild overstatement, but it's fair to say the odds are massively better in B.

Secondarily, the comment was made, "too heavy". (I assume that isn't referring to the 'correctness' of the process weight), but the enjoyment of the racing experience, or the (if it were to happen) way it would race against the typical competition.

So, no build.

[Knestis]

Well Kirk, you could say that the numbers are trying to make the decision. The number being the zero that have been built since it was classified. And I'm sorry, but I don't see how a Rabbit GTI @ 2080# in ITB 'makes more sense' than a Rabbit GTI @ 2250# in ITC. I'm not saying that the ITC classification makes more sense than the ITB classification. I just don't understand how you can say one makes more sense than the other. It should be competitive in both classes at the respective weight (w/in the limits of the process).

And do I understand you right, the Mk IV Golf is in ITB, yet you're considering putting the Mk IV Jetta in ITC? If that's the case, you'll be creating the only example (AFAIK) in all of Club Racing where the same car is in two different classes (in the same category) based solely on a difference in body configuration (hatchback vs. sedan). Think about how that's going to look to an outsider looking in.

We haven't had anyone request that the Rabbit GTI be moved to C but a thorough review of B might well suggest that this should be the case - no question. There are several current B cars that would follow that same logic but we don't have a mandate (yet?) to do a major overhaul, so we're responsive to member requests.

On the Jetta question, the decision would be based on whether it appeared that the trunk makes it heavy enough that it won't get to the B minimum - not on the presence or absence of the trunk. The numbers tell the tale. In fact, looking back at our notes, we had a request to list the MkIV Jetta but it hasn't been acted on, pending a request for more information.

K

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

I'll give you that the small C fields may well contribute the lack of anyone wanting to build a new C car. As far as your 'too heavy' comment, the 'correctness' of the process weight really doesn't matter. In the end, doesn't everyone look at the spec weight of the car, and decide (among other things) if they feel that it's appropriate for them to be able to build a competitive car? You could have an E36 @ 4000# (or whatever the actual process # would be) running in ITB. The weight would be 'correct' [sic] from a process standpoint, but no one would build one. Think about it, it's pretty much why R was created. To give cars that would have to be too heavy in S configuration, a place to race. You can determine a 'correct' [sic] weight for every car in the ITCS, for every class in the ITCS. Sure, some don't make sense, but all the 'correctness' [sic] says, is that given the inputs, here's what the process says this car should weigh for this class, nothing more.

And what's w/ this 'enjoy the racing experience'? Most of the people I know that run Club Racing do it to be competitive. That comment sounds like it is better geared to someplace like PCA w/ their 13/13 rule.


Kirk,

I actually pushed hard for the Rabbit GTI to ITC move back when the GR was being considered. And whatever happened to being proactive? If you guys are being directed by the CRB and BoD to not be proactive, that's a different story.

I still don't understand the NB in ITC thing. An '04 Golf 2-dr starts off at a published curb weight of 2771#. If that can get to 2350#, what makes you feel that an '04 NB that starts off @ 2743# couldn't?

[Andy Bettencourt]

For ITAC purposes, the 'correct' weight is the lightest achievable wight for a given class. Not ANY process weight for ANY class.

Edmunds shows 2712 for a 1998 New Beetle and 2544 for a Golf GL.

2170 is a wet weight for a 2350lb car without 180lbs driver. A 374lb loss for the Golf and a 542lb loss for the Beetle. These data points are and were considerations for the classifications.

[lateapex911]

Jake,



And what's w/ this 'enjoy the racing experience'? Most of the people I know that run Club Racing do it to be competitive. That comment sounds like it is better geared to someplace like PCA w/ their 13/13 rule.



Well, it's not a Porsche, but nevermind that, LOL. He just didn't want to drive a pig in C. Thats sums it up. He didn't say it wouldn't be competitive, but there are other cars that could be competitive that he'd rather pursue.

[RacerBill]

Just curious. Did any of the Shelby owners write to the ITAC voicing that they'd want their cars to remain in ITA? Was there an effort to get other owners to do the same?



Dave: I! had no advanced warning of the change, it was a surprise to me!

[Bill Miller]

For ITAC purposes, the 'correct' weight is the lightest achievable wight for a given class. Not ANY process weight for ANY class.

Edmunds shows 2712 for a 1998 New Beetle and 2544 for a Golf GL.

2170 is a wet weight for a 2350lb car without 180lbs driver. A 374lb loss for the Golf and a 542lb loss for the Beetle. These data points are and were considerations for the classifications.

And Edmunds shows 2771 for an '04 Golf 2-dr GL and 2743 for an '04 NB GL. So now you're looking at a 601# loss for the Golf and a 573# loss for the NB.

If anything Andy, that's making a case for all of them to be in ITC.

[rlward]

I dito thar bill, no advance warning. Not that ITB is bad, But I was very vocal about th change.

I vote 7" accross the board or open it up for fitment. I f you goi to 7 for all, I wont be a burden if you get reclassed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And Edmunds shows 2771 for an '04 Golf 2-dr GL and 2743 for an '04 NB GL. So now you're looking at a 601# loss for the Golf and a 573# loss for the NB.

If anything Andy, that's making a case for all of them to be in ITC.

I am not going to get into a pissing match with you Bill but the first year the NB was classed is year that I grabbed for the GIII for weight. Unless that number is not valid for some reason, I believe in the classing as is. Actually, since the cars are essentially the same sans bodywork, it give VW guys two legit choices for a class.

What I beleive it really means is that people either aren't building cars for ITC, don't desire the NB as a car and/or all of the above - don't like heavy racecars. Either way, none are getting built. And that doesn't make it unique by any means in any class. If someone really wanted to race one, they can build one. Prove to us that it CAN make ITB weight and poof, it's in ITB - we were wrong. If it can't make weight, you have an ITC car that is better suited to be competitive in class and you still have the NB you wanted to build. Nobody loses.

[Bill Miller]

I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest w/ you Andy. What I'm trying to figure out, is why a Mk IV Golf is in ITB, when it starts out heavier than a New Beetle, which is in ITC. I could care less about the Mk III Golf.

[rlward]

I this normal? only 67 votes? I would think more would have voted than this. Maybe this isn't the right venue.

[Knestis]

That's 67 votes, not 67 voters, since respondents can vote more than once.

Remember too that, while this isn't an official SCCA venue, it's about the best way the ITAC has to take the pulse of the membership. By comparison, an official request for member input in Fastrack typically wouldn't get anything like this much response.

K

[rlward]

K-
Sad....but the same for politics....uh oh don't get me going there!!!!
Thanks for your help and comments. what next? How do I get the SCCA to look at this? I already wrote a letter a month or 2 ago.

[lateapex911]

That is how you get the SCCA to look at it. You write the letter, the committee reviews it, weighs in, and takes action. That action could be a positive one and a new rule, or a possible action that goes out for member input, or a non action...and all are just recommendations to the CRB. The CRB reviews the committees thoughts and recommendation, and supports or rejects it. Certain items require BoD approval. Then the result gets published.

With meeting agendas being chock full, and the need to navigate through several layers, items can take a while to percolate completely.

[gran racing]

I this normal? only 67 votes?

It's because this poll doesn't really matter. I haven't voted but you already know how I feel.

[AE86ITA]

My point is the lack of availability of 15x6 wheels and by that it invalidate the spirit of the category of a cheap/low budget racing.
I understand that everyone can install the parts that his/her budget allow but to impose a $1000.00+ expense in wheels is absurd.
Either 15x6.5" or 15x7.0" for ITB or ITC.

[Greg Amy]

Dude, you realize that conversation was from nearly 3-1/2 years ago...right?

ITB wheel sizes are not going to change.

[AE86ITA]

Thanks Greg:
I understand but the point still a valid one that deserves continuous fighting for.

[gran racing]

Errr, yeah. This would piss off a LOT of existing SCCA customers.

Or maybe a deal - use 7" wide rims with a 300 weight adder. :)

[Chip42]

If the fitment is 4x100 then the question has been answered. TrackSpeed Motorsports and Phils Tire service teamed up to make a 15x6 wheel available for ITB/C guys. Its called the CR6, available in flat black or silver, and costs $115 each. Phil's add is in the classified section of this forum and you can contact me @ [email protected] or 407-617-7918. We'd be glad to help.

[AE86ITA]

If the fitment is 4x100 then the question has been answered. TrackSpeed Motorsports and Phils Tire service teamed up to make a 15x6 wheel available for ITB/C guys. Its called the CR6, available in flat black or silver, and costs $115 each. Phil's add is in the classified section of this forum and you can contact me @ [email protected] or 407-617-7918. We'd be glad to help.


4-114.3 with 10mm offset

[Knestis]

The CR6 option demonstrates that this isn't a catagory-wide issue, and the rules can't make every car make/model option easy or affordable.

K

[Chip42]

Try retrosport wheels. They have a lot of 4 on 114.3 fitments in 15x6.

Seriously, that fitment is the least troublesome in itb.

[lawtonglenn]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

qty 20 in stock $175 each -$50/4 rebate = $163 ea in sets of 4

http://www.gbcarparts.com/proddetail.asp?prod=RS-15x6RS4GM

Retro Sport Wheels RS4 15x6, +24 offset 4x114.3 PCD in Gun Metal (gray)with a polished lip.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

qty 20 in stock $160 each -$50/4 rebate = $148 ea in sets of 4

http://www.gbcarparts.com/proddetail.asp?prod=RS-15x6RS4Silver

Retro Sport Wheels RS4 15x6, +24 offset 4x114.3 PCD in Silver with a polished lip.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Free lug nuts, valve stem, logo for center cap and US mainland shipping. Offset: +24mm ET Weight: 13 pounds Backspace: 4.4" / 122mm X-Factor: 1/2" / 12mm Load Rating: 1360lb / 620KgPlease specify which model you are ordering for.
Free US mainland Shipping on these Wheels for a limited time only-Enter coupon code “wheelship” on the checkout page
span> For a limited time also get a $50.00 manufacturers mail in rebate on a set of 4 wheels - Click for more details

[philstireservice]

4-114.3 with 10mm offset

There are no more wheels on the planet that are 4x114.3.....much less with a 10mm offset...sheeesh !!

[gran racing]

After you buy several sets of wheels, the ITAC will then approve 7" wide wheels. :p That's really not far off what this change would do for others.

[AE86ITA]

Our car is a 1985 Toyota Corolla GTS (aka AE86). We have used the Konig Rewind in 15x7 4-114.3 with 0mm offset (15.2Lbs ea) while in ITA. The Retrosport wheels look great but the 15x6 weight is around 15Lbs.

[mossaidis]

^ I don't get it...

[AE86ITA]

^ I don't get it...

I would expect that (if the 15x7 weights 15.2 Lbs) the 15x6 to weight 13 Lbs. or less

[Knestis]

...and the rules have even less obligation of making sure that entrants of every make/model option have cheap AND light wheels.

K

[AE86ITA]

Good point, I bought a set of Volks TE37 15x7 0mm offset(10 Lbs) that got destroyed in an accident. There is no longer that kind of budget for wheels, for now on must keep an eye on expenses...

[Chip42]

1" of rim width is pretty light compared to the center part of the wheel. Comparing one wheel model and width to a different wheel with a different width is not a good way to predict wheel weight. 13-15 lbs is common in that size.

[Bill Miller]

I would expect that (if the 15x7 weights 15.2 Lbs) the 15x6 to weight 13 Lbs. or less

I thought Glenn's post said that they weigh 13lbs. Did I miss something?

Also, any option for Phil or Chip to order a set or two drilled at a different bolt circle? I know the offset / backspacing won't change, but you can fix that w/ spacers.

[StephenB]

you can fix the bolt pattern issue with a set of spacers as well.

Stephen

[Chip42]

with sufficient interest from the 114.3 crowd (audis, porsche, old toyota, etc...) we can do a run of the 114.3"x4 wheels.... but I'm pretty sure we'd need to have preorders enough to predicate the deal. let us know, it's not impossible.

[AE86ITA]

with sufficient interest from the 114.3 crowd (audis, porsche, old toyota, etc...) we can do a run of the 114.3"x4 wheels.... but I'm pretty sure we'd need to have preorders enough to predicate the deal. let us know, it's not impossible.


How about offset options??

[Chip42]

How about offset options??

they'd be 35mm just like the 4x100 wheels. for lower offsets, you have a lot of 4x114.3 options in the vintage sportscar market.

[Spinnetti]

I got bumped down to B with two sets of expensive new wheels I can't use now, but I'll leave that axe to grind for a later date (I just stopped racing SCCA instead for now)... I would say however, that if a car comes to class with STOCK wheels bigger than the class allowance, its probably not a good idea to force smaller wheels on them (I wouldn't build a race car running smaller wheels than stock). Cars that come from the factory with standard (not optional/trunk kit) wheels bigger than class rules should be allowed either to go to the class spec, OR run factory/factory exact replica wheels. Going down in size seems contrary to safety and commmon sense. This doesn't help me any, but is right for the class IMO :)

[Knestis]

This was an ITAC topic for a while 3 years ago or so. A resolution discussed was the option of running the STOCK wheels, limiting the size in instances where a driver ELECTS to replace them. Remember that with the exception of safety requirements, it's not mandatory to take advantage of allowances for aftermarket parts.

K

[JoshS]

This was an ITAC topic for a while 3 years ago or so. A resolution discussed was the option of running the STOCK wheels, limiting the size in instances where a driver ELECTS to replace them. Remember that with the exception of safety requirements, it's not mandatory to take advantage of allowances for aftermarket parts.

I believe that's what the rules already say (although some disagree with me.)

9.1.3.D: AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein.
(my comment -- these are authorized modifications. It is implicit that leaving a component in its stock state is fine.)

9.1.3.D.7: Any wheel/tire may be used within the following limitations:
(my comment -- because this is part of 9.1.3.D, which lists authorized modifications, any wheel/tire within the following limitations may be used as an authorized modification. Stock is still fine.

9.1.3.D.7.a: Maximum allowable rim widths: ITR - 8.5 inches, classes ITS and ITA - seven (7) inches; classes ITB and ITC - six (6) inches.
(my comment -- so, only non-stock wheels are subject to this limit.)

[Bill Miller]

I believe that's what the rules already say (although some disagree with me.)

9.1.3.D: AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS The following modifications are authorized on all Improved Touring Category cars. Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein.
(my comment -- these are authorized modifications. It is implicit that leaving a component in its stock state is fine.)

9.1.3.D.7: Any wheel/tire may be used within the following limitations:
(my comment -- because this is part of 9.1.3.D, which lists authorized modifications, any wheel/tire within the following limitations may be used as an authorized modification. Stock is still fine.

9.1.3.D.7.a: Maximum allowable rim widths: ITR - 8.5 inches, classes ITS and ITA - seven (7) inches; classes ITB and ITC - six (6) inches.
(my comment -- so, only non-stock wheels are subject to this limit.)

Josh,

While I respect your perspective, I doubt that would ever fly. Show up w/ an ITC New Beetle w/ the stock 16x6.5 wheels, and they're not going to be legal.

I forget which car it was, but I recall some spec line exception for an ITS car to allow it to run 'larger than limit' wheels, because they were stock. Not sure if that was a diameter issue, or a width issue. I also recall the issue of wheel width when we were working on ITR.

[StephenB]

My RX8 is allowed 18 inch rims as they came stock with the car. It is noted in the GCR though.

Stephen

[Chip42]

I think this is like weight - it's a hard limit that is in effect regardless of what the stock equipment was. it's worded badly in the rules, but the maximum width wheel in IT_ is indicated in the ITCS and the maximum diameter on the specline for the car.

but I guess that I'd be fine with stock wheels over the class size limits IF you run stock size and speed rating tires, too. the idea that running a thinner wheel than stock is somehow unsafe, when that car is also equipped with different springs, dampers, lower ride height, "DOT R" compound tires, racing brake linings, and a weight that may be hundreds of pounds heavier or lighter than stock curb weight (and always much lower than the GVWR) while subjecting it to racing conditions NEVER INTENDED for that chassis is silly.

[JoshS]

I think this is like weight - it's a hard limit that is in effect regardless of what the stock equipment was. it's worded badly in the rules, but the maximum width wheel in IT_ is indicated in the ITCS and the maximum diameter on the specline for the car.

Well, that might have been the intention, but I don't think that's what the rules say. I used the same argument to allow the stock S2000 rear shocks (remove reservoir) when we got letters about that, but all I know is that no rules changed as a result. I don't remember what we told those owners.

[Bill Miller]

Well, that might have been the intention, but I don't think that's what the rules say. I used the same argument to allow the stock S2000 rear shocks (remove reservoir) when we got letters about that, but all I know is that no rules changed as a result. I don't remember what we told those owners.

It's just another case of poorly written rules. Again, I appreciate your line of thinking, but if stock parts are good regardless, why are there places in the ITCS that say "unless fitted as stock / original equipment"?

There's also the whole issue of legality of aftermarket parts. If it's legal to use an aftermarket part that is equivalent to the stock, OEM part, why would it not be legal to use an aftermarket wheel that is equivalent to the stock wheel?

Both sides of the argument can be seen as valid. I can see this as being a case that needs an official interpretation.

[Ed Funk]

Gawd! Winter and the attendant winter silliness started early this year! :blink:

[Spinnetti]

It's just another case of poorly written rules. Again, I appreciate your line of thinking, but if stock parts are good regardless, why are there places in the ITCS that say "unless fitted as stock / original equipment"?

There's also the whole issue of legality of aftermarket parts. If it's legal to use an aftermarket part that is equivalent to the stock, OEM part, why would it not be legal to use an aftermarket wheel that is equivalent to the stock wheel?

Both sides of the argument can be seen as valid. I can see this as being a case that needs an official interpretation.


Exactly. However all the rules torturing is why I've taken a multi-year break from IT to just go race and have fun instead (elsewhere, without all the rules yet still competition is incredible).... Still not sure I'm coming back, but love my IT car.......

[lateapex911]

Exactly. However all the rules torturing is why I've taken a multi-year break from IT to just go race and have fun instead (elsewhere, without all the rules yet still competition is incredible).... Still not sure I'm coming back, but love my IT car.......

Curious, where'd you go?

[Spinnetti]

Curious, where'd you go?

Here's a hint :) Drives like my IT car, only 1/2 the cost and faster, and on junkyard prep level. Only place where good racing is had between a 2400lb 4 cylinder, and a 3200lb quad cam v8 in all random mixes of cars and prep..... In this race, I lost to the 2400lb 4 cylinder, but my lap times were 3sec/lap better...... you don't need a billion rules and professional rule torturers to have good racing......

[AE86ITA]

Since the whole ITB is going to be re-evaluated why not re-consider standardizing wheel width in ITS, ITA, ITB & ITC?

It just makes sence as cars get slower get moved to a slower class less expenses and easier to find wheels for everyone.

[Spinnetti]

Since the whole ITB is going to be re-evaluated why not re-consider standardizing wheel width in ITS, ITA, ITB & ITC?

It just makes sence as cars get slower get moved to a slower class less expenses and easier to find wheels for everyone.

Any details on the re-eval? I'm right on the cusp of deciding to sell my Corolla. Why is wheel width such a big deal anyway?

[gran racing]

Don't have a fight in this anymore but keep the darn wheel width as-is. Or allow 7" wide wheels with a good weight adder. Nothing would piss off existing customers than making this change. 14 dry wheels were in my inventory at 6"s wide. Current itb racers have already made the investment. Not sure why this would even be a consideration with the itac now.

[Chip42]

what dave said. no one on the ad hoc has advertised a desire to see larger wheels in ITB and C.

[ShelbyRacer]

Actually, I have, in the past, specifically requested the ability to run 6.5 in ITB due to availability. And my car is 5x100, so I can't take advantage of the deals that have been made available here.

That said, I have not made, nor am I intending to make, that request again. If a request was made, I'd certainly discuss it, but given all the points that have been made against, I'm not thinking that it will change. Though I do like the idea that Dave mentioned about allowance with an adder, I'm not sure that's really a level of complexity that is appropriate for IT. Don't get me wrong- I have more 15x7 wheels sitting around currently than I do 15x6s, but I certainly am not going to try to push a huge change like this based on a personal situation.

I just wanted to make sure that people do know where I stand, since as an ITAC member, I need to be accountable. I wouldn't fight the change, but right now, I think we have larger issues with realignments in classes. Throwing in one more change, that does have real cost ramifications for MANY racers, is not something I'd support.

[joeg]

7 inch width to match SM; those 15X 7(s) are available everywhere.

[Andy Bettencourt]

7 inch width to match SM; those 15X 7(s) are available everywhere.

If you run a 4x100

[Flyinglizard]

Many of the sub 100hp cars will go slower on more rubber.
I doubt that anyone would mind allowing 7in . More cheap options are always better.
Why dont you ask around at the next race?? \
Each of the ITAC take a notepad to grid

[Chip42]

Mike - a 225 is faster than a 205 @ sebring and savannah, as well as other "local" tracks. a 7" wide wheel adds to that contact patch AND hugely increases buying options. many people already have a 6" wheel collection and would be VERY upset if the rules changed. now is not the time for such things. lets get the hous ein order, then wory about the door mat.

[pugboy]

If you can mount 225's on a 6" wheel, would 245's be theoretically faster in an ITB car - relatively low HP? I am not trying to fan any flames. I am truly curious.

[philstireservice]

If you can mount 225's on a 6" wheel, would 245's be theoretically faster in an ITB car - relatively low HP? I am not trying to fan any flames. I am truly curious.


If you are talking about mounting a 245 on a 6" wheel, well most likely not. You will not gain the foot print because you will be squeezing that sucker in so much.....

[gran racing]

It would really depend upon the track and the actual contact patch that is attained. Then on top of that, I'd be curious how a wider Autocross tire would work if the rim allowance were opened up to 7"s. Right now many cars burn up the As too quickly. If opened up to 7" wheels, maybe that would change a bit? Regardless, there absolutely would be a competitive advantage by opening up 7" wide wheels.

[pugboy]

I was curious if, just for an example, a Mk III ITB Golf would perform better with 255/265 tires with 7" wheels vs. 225 on 6" wheels? If that makes sense.

I can see where many racers are coming from that they've invested in wheels for the class, and now they may not be competitive if the rules change. BTW, I need to include myself in that camp. It's a tough situation, but my feeling is that keeping the 6" rule is probably the most fair to everyone.

[Flyinglizard]

Times have changed. When IT started, VWs, Hondas etc, had 4.5 -5.5 in wide wheels. The 6 in was big then. You could buy nice 6 wide wheels, and matching race tires. I bought an entire car to get the right wheels , not long ago.

Skip 20yrs. Many new cars have 7in wide stock wheels. I think that the B spec cars have 6 or 7 stock, and race on the standard Sm wheels of 15x7.
All of the dropped A cars have 7s. The Beetle does also . Making racers , race on wheels less than stock, defies logic. IMHO
Now days , you cant easily buy 6 in wheels or tires designed for them.
Maybe it is time to move on. maybe the 100# for 7 in wheels would be fine.

Really, the ITAC should consult the racers that are racing the cars. Put out a letter for input. Ask on the grid.
For a club driven by members. SCCA seldom ask the customers what they want. Please start asking.

[StephenB]

Making racers , race on wheels less than stock, defies logic. IMHO
Really, the ITAC should consult the racers that are racing the cars. Put out a letter for input. Ask on the grid.
For a club driven by members. SCCA seldom ask the customers what they want. Please start asking.

FYI SCCA IT racing is the only racing series I can run Stock size wheels on my RX8. Grand-AM, Canadian Touring Car, and World Challenge all make me run smaller diameter and width rims/tires.

PS: I vote to leave it as is, all new rims costs more than my ITB car is worth!

[lateapex911]

Really, the ITAC should consult the racers that are racing the cars. Put out a letter for input. Ask on the grid.
For a club driven by members. SCCA seldom ask the customers what they want. Please start asking.

For what it's worth, in my time on the ITAC, I bent over backwards asking guys questions. The CRB thought I was TOO communicative, LOL. I think the current group are doing a pretty good job of keeping current on racers opinions.

It's def an issue, and some guys would actually have both widths...for different tracks. Coming up with a "penalty weight" would be tricky, and it would never affect all cars in the class equally.

[lateapex911]

I was curious if, just for an example, a Mk III ITB Golf would perform better with 255/265 tires with 7" wheels vs. 225 on 6" wheels? If that makes sense.

I can see where many racers are coming from that they've invested in wheels for the class, and now they may not be competitive if the rules change. BTW, I need to include myself in that camp. It's a tough situation, but my feeling is that keeping the 6" rule is probably the most fair to everyone.

Yes, SOME cars would be faster on wider rims with more rubber. Some, like the lesser powered cars that are already flat at many corners. (ITC and lots of ITB cars at say Lime Rock), would likely be slower, due to increased rolling resistance.

And Dave brings up another good point. Where some ITB cars can now use A compound tires and make them last a race, other heavier cars cannot. (on the current 6" rim) Change the width rule, and that aspect changes too.

Finally, the rule disallows anything that doesn't fit under the stock fender. Some cars have plenty of room for wider setups, yet others don't. A rule change allowing wider rims will be unfair to those cars, as they can not legally fit the new allowance.

[Chip42]

also keep in mind that MOST cars in ITB, even with the recent additions from ITA, came from the factory with 6" or smaller width wheels AND there are 15x6 options out there to fit almost every car in the class if only by using other car's stock wheels. ITC guys seem to like their 13s by and large.

15x6" is the sweet spot for tire fitments right now, SM6, A6, R6, BFG, Toyo RR, RA1, R888, Yokohama whatever it is that no one runs, Goodyear, hankook all have fitments, many don't have a 14" option but all fit on a 15x6.

so that point is moot.

7" wide wheels were pretty roundly addressed above. it's NOT a pressing issue.

for the 4on104.5, 5on100/etc... crowds - if you need a wheel, make noise. the 4x100 question has been answered and it's not much of a stretch to imagine that a similar answer could be had for you.

[MarkyMark]

i sure do wish it would go to 7". alot of cars now come from the factory with 7" rims. just make it 7" across the board.

[lateapex911]

What do you say to the hundreds (or over a thousand?)of guys with investments in 3 sets of 6" rims...and tires?
And what do you say to the guys who CAN'T fit 7s, and will go backwards in the result sheets because of it??

[Knestis]

What do you say ...??

7" wheels are cooler...? :shrug:

K

EDIT - To the MkIII Golf question earlier, we did back-to-back testing and determined that the best combination was 225s on the front and 205s on the rear (running Hoosiers). Some tracks would probably favor 205s all the way 'round. Mid-O isn't one. I gave Tristan a pair of 225s to use to beat me at the 'fest two years ago.

[MarkyMark]

i dont think thousands out there would be affected. i see plenty of cars with tires that should be on a 7" rim but are on 6". with todays wheels there are so many with the right offset i dont see a problem with fitment. i really dont think the 1" difference will make you go backwards in the result sheets. i see so many cars running like 225/45/15 tires on 6" rims when they should be 7". just my .02. dont mean to offend anyone :023:

[Chip42]

I don't think anyone around here is thin skinned enough to be offended...

anyhow, the wheel width limits the section width of the tire. by capping the class at 6" (which really is NOT out of line with the OE fitments on the VAST majority of the cars in ITB and C) the tires are limited to 225, and then the section is smaller than it would be on a 7" rim. there's an overall performance limit here that we don't need to mess with. if ITB goes to 7", why shouldn't we change ITS to 8? and ITR to 9 or 10? wheel availability is not the point. the wheels are out there, in ALL cases and for all classes as currently specified. yeah, some aren't cheap, but they're out there. just because you can't get a konig rewind or Enkei RPF1 in 6" width doesn't mean there needs to be a fundamental performance envelope rules change.

[gran racing]

i really dont think the 1" difference will make you go backwards in the result sheets. i see so many cars running like 225/45/15 tires on 6" rims when they should be 7".

This isn't the case. When front running cars are built, they are doing anything which might result in even a small performance increase. Things that are a major PITA to install such as crank scrapers, lots of dyno time and tuning, and so forth are done. People would change to a 7" rim for reasons more than just because of wheel availability.

[Flyinglizard]

The Prod guys are discussing the tire width rule, disregarding the wheel size.
That may help the IT guys also.
Spec the max tire section, without a rim size rule.
Makes a lot of sense, IMHO. MM