Wheel width, ITB, again [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

RSTPerformance

05-24-2009, 11:33 AM

Does anyone think it might be time to revisit wheel width for ITB again? I have not ben able to find a set of 15 X 6 with 5 X 100 bolt pattern that weigh less than 20lbs.

It seems to me the argument for or against should be based on what is currently available in the marketplace without having to have custom rims made or looking at wrecking yards. I don't know about other bolt patterns or if any body else is having a hard time finding what they need.

It also seems that as cars are reclassifed, the complete car should be moved including the wheel size and the rules modified as needed by the reclasification.

Although I could find someone to make 15 x 6 wheels, the cost was $240/wheel for an aluminum wheel. Some may find this price acceptable, but I don't. Makers of wheels tend to change with the times and sizes that don't sell are discontinued.

Thoughts?

I am not a fan of changing rules like you suggest simply because several people (including myself) have an investment in the current rules set. If we constantly change to meet what the market sells then we will have to continually re-invest in something that may work just fine how it is. While cheaper for those trying to get in, it will cost you more in the long run.

We have not changed from the 14" wheel to a 15" wheel for the same reason I stated (can't afford the re-investment). I would be upset if I did buy 15X6 wheels only to have the rule change again a year later.

With all that said, I personaly don't think I would not be upset if the rule did end up changing.

Raymond "Believer in rules stability" Blethen

StephenB

05-24-2009, 11:36 AM

I do not think the wheel width should increase. I do not want to have to purchase all new rims to "stay up width" the competition. Some will argue that you don't need to purchase all new rims and tires... well then why does anyone want the larger ones?

I DO think that if a car is classified that comes with a larger wider tire that is should be allowed the larger tire size and that this should be considered when it is classified.

Stephen

Greg Amy

05-24-2009, 12:05 PM

I do not think the wheel width should increase. I do not want to have to purchase all new rims...
This is the common response from ITB competitors each time this issue is breached.

However, no ITB competitors have offered "My position is XXX, because I believe it's good for the class, and here's why." This is right inline with Kirk's assertion that almost all rules requests are done with a selfish motive. While there's nothing specifically wrong with that, it's not a good basis for a policy change (nor a good basis for resisting a policy change).

Look at the New Beetle topic: for all you competitors that don't want to change the rules because of selfish reasons, how do you propose anyone wishing to prep a NB for ITC resolve that situation?

So, try assuming that you're not an ITB or ITC competitor. Try assuming you do not own even one 6" wheel. Then, think about what's best for the class, best for its long-term future, and best for attracting the most competitors to your class.

Greg

RSTPerformance

05-24-2009, 02:08 PM

So, try assuming that you're not an ITB or ITC competitor. Try assuming you do not own even one 6" wheel. Then, think about what's best for the class, best for its long-term future, and best for attracting the most competitors to your class.

Greg

Greg-

A good practice to attract new competitors is to change the rules to meet the current trends in the automotive market. Things like big wheels, useless wings and ground effects? However for the long term, we need to maintain some class rules stability. Changing things like wheels sizes every year or two to keep up with the "trends" could have its benefits and its negatives. So far I have not seen a negative to increasing the wheel size from 14" to 15" eventhough I have not made that change yet.

It is an interesting balance... Attract newbies and keep the old timers happy :)

Raymond

Knestis

05-24-2009, 04:08 PM

Just Kirk talking but there's a difference between changing diameter and changing width, in terms of proximal impact on performance - particularly for heavier cars that may already be overworking tires at one end or the other.

Read Greg's post again. It's got to be about what's best for the category, and that's what the ITAC wrestles with.

K

rlward

05-24-2009, 05:13 PM

Are you saying that what is good for my car is not good for the class? I thought I was a member of the class..... It is a selfish reason to let me use 7" wide rims; I can't find aftermarket 6". I was ITA and did buy 7" just months before the change to ITB was even suggested. I did have to shelve the 7". Selfish, yes. Good for the class, yes. Would anybody else benifit from moving to 7" in ITB? Yes if they could not find 6" wide in the their bolt pattern. Is there a competitive advantage, probably assuming you found lighter wheels.

No one is compelled to purchase another set of wheels just because a rule changes other than those that are moved from, say ITA, to ITB. I was, now I can't find wheels other than stock 20lb wheels.

Maybe we should look at why some people don't want to keep in line with new market trends...Maybe they are the ones that already have a good source of available wheels and they are the selfish ones! Every question put out should be first answered at home.

cjb25hs

05-24-2009, 05:34 PM

Any of the second gen neon wheels should fit the bill and weigh less than 20 lbs. What you really need to find is a set of trunk kit wheels for the neon they are 15 x 6 with a 400mm offset and weigh IIRC 15.6 lbs. Look over on neons.org. There were several sets for sale the past few months.

tom91ita

05-24-2009, 06:49 PM

roger, just want to make sure i am understanding a couple of things:

1)
I was ITA and did buy 7" just months before the change to ITB was even suggested.

sounds like your car went from ITA to ITB much like my 85 CRX Si. i too had 14x7's and then had to get some 6's. pretty painful from a $$ viewpoint. of course, since i have 13x6 panas and some 14x7 panas, maybe no one will notice if i swap.......

i would not have an issue with your wanting to run another size since it is similar to the issue of having to use factory parts and then there are no factory parts available. is there any possibility of running something other than 15" (both rules wise or from a physical clearance issue)?

2)

It also seems that as cars are reclassifed, the complete car should be moved including the wheel size and the rules modified as needed by the reclasification.

my version ITB car (85-87) crx si came with either 13x5 or 14x5 wheels. going to 6" rims is not much of a stretch. if i had a newer B car that came with 15x7 or 16 x 6.5, etc., i would be pretty bummed if i could not use the car's OEM wheels.

i think there needs to room for this. i do not relish the ITAC group for having to consider this but if there is considerations for HP, Torque, weight, suspension, etc., it would seem that a consideration for weight adjustment for wheel width is not that far fetched.

not wanting to start a NASA debate but does Performance Touring have such an adjustment?

Knestis

05-24-2009, 07:00 PM

tom91ita

05-24-2009, 07:03 PM

Hypothetical (VERY) question: So which is the correct option?

.....

Did I forget any options?

K

6. Only allow 6" wide rims.

Knestis

05-24-2009, 09:03 PM

Whoops. Sorry, yeah - I should have prefaced that with, "If we were to change the rule..."

K

StephenB

05-24-2009, 09:07 PM

This is the common response from ITB competitors each time this issue is breached.

However, no ITB competitors have offered "My position is XXX, because I believe it's good for the class, and here's why." This is right inline with Kirk's assertion that almost all rules requests are done with a selfish motive. While there's nothing specifically wrong with that, it's not a good basis for a policy change (nor a good basis for resisting a policy change).

Look at the New Beetle topic: for all you competitors that don't want to change the rules because of selfish reasons, how do you propose anyone wishing to prep a NB for ITC resolve that situation?

So, try assuming that you're not an ITB or ITC competitor. Try assuming you do not own even one 6" wheel. Then, think about what's best for the class, best for its long-term future, and best for attracting the most competitors to your class.

Greg

I am sorry greg but I believe I answered the original question, I had no intent to write to SCCA with the argument I wrote above. The question said Thoughts? which to me implied the poster wanted to get feedback on how it affected us AKA me and anyone else that responded.

To Answer Gregs question: (Not really a defence on why it is better for the class since I don't think I should be writing to the ITAC to defend the rules set in the GCR!) My position is to follow the GCR rules, because I believe it's good for the class, and here's why please refer to both sections A.purpose and B. Intent of section 9.1.3 in the GCR

To Answer Kirks Question:
FOLLOW THE RULES in the GCR for the Improved Touring Catagory and instead consider DUAL CLASSIFICATIONS so that members don't get hit with a huge bill/burden to continue to race with us.

As far as newer cars with bigger wheels being classified then that should get considered upon being considered for classification. again this is part of section A. Purpose and addressed in the second sentence. If the ITAC thinks it's necasary to have additional wieght added then that is up to them. A section of the GCR labeled "notes" is part of every car classified and is utilized in IT for special considerations on items offered from that factory that are "out of the norm" and could be questionable.

I do feel sympathy for the poster that started this thread because his car was reclassified. In my opinion that is the error/mistake that the ITAC and the CRB needs to consider. He should be able to run his car in ITA as he original created the car at the original specifications he built his car to. When and if the car is Dual Classed not RE-classed he could then incurr the expense of new rims if he wanted to switch classes. I agree that what the ITAC and CRB did to him is a deterent and an unfair cost that he had to incurr. My solution would be for the ITAC and CRB to fix the mistake they made and Dual Class his car.

Stephen

Knestis

05-24-2009, 09:20 PM

I read in what you wrote, Stephen, that when you say "mistake" you don't just mean that others might differ in their thinking and make another decision. You are suggesting - I think - that the ITAC didn't "FOLLOW THE RULES in the GCR." Is that what you're saying and, if so, how do you think we screwed up?

K

gran racing

05-24-2009, 09:29 PM

There are several ways this topic could be viewed. In one sense, you're taking a car that was uncompetitive and putting it in a class where it has a shot. Even using 20 lb rims, it certainly has a better opportunity than in the previous class.

How many cars are being impacted? Opening up the rules to 7" rims has a much better impact on the drivers in the class.

Possibly adding extra weight to cars for using 7" rims might be an option. It will get complicated though.

Maybe cars being moved can have a dual classification for X number of years.

StephenB

05-24-2009, 09:31 PM

NO both the things you quoted are in very different topics in diffent paragraphs:

What I mean by "FOLLOW THE RULES" is that I think that we should continue to follow the Current Rules and not change the current wheel widths. Unless we are considering a new car that comes Stock with something different as I think I explained my personal opinion that I think best benefits the class and all members.

As far as the "error/mistake" mentioned in a later paragraph simply ment that I sympathise with the original poster because the ITAC forced him to purchase all new wheels and I think SCCA made a mistake/error that should be reconsidered. so I guess its a matter of opinion and mine is much different than the one that was made to Re-Classify cars and incurr large costs to current members rather than to dual Classify cars and give members a choice.

Sorry for the confusion,
Stephen

tom91ita

05-24-2009, 10:12 PM

possibility #7 might be a fix for only this situation and not good as a "policy/rule" would be to allow the use of the 4 bolt hubs and 13-14" wheels of the other ITB Dodge 024 chargers etc.

i just looked at the GCR and i might be off in what cars i remember being the same basic body style. no real idea if this is a hard or expensive fix.

just tossing this out as a possibility in the form of electronic brainstorming.....

lawtonglenn

05-24-2009, 11:04 PM

.

I know this is not the question, but DTD has 15x6 5-100 ET43
aluminum wheels for $99 .... I couldn't find the weight, but
you could call them at 800.589.6789

http://www.discounttiredirect.com/direct/findWheelsBySize.do?bp=5-100*9-100&wd=15&rw=6

.

924Guy

05-25-2009, 08:55 AM

OK, I'm gonna skip all the replies here and go back to address the orig post - 'cause I think there's a bit of wandering induced.

Inevitably when ITB wheel width comes up, it's a discussion of supply. Yet, at the same time, it tends to be a statement of "this will save me money/give better/faster options" rather than "I can't find ANYTHING that will fit, at any reasonable cost."

On that basis right there - it seems that this proposal will not be consistent with IT philosophy, no?

Alternate parts may be allowed if proof of unobtainable originals can be provided, but this usually also is applied to where only original, unmodified OEM parts are required, and aftermarket parts aren't allowed.

So here IMO we seem to fall into the category of "I can't get good aftermarket parts cheap enough." Though allowing us to race cheap certainly is a goal of IT (especially ITB cars!) - that may come at the cost of speed. I'm not talking about things like shocks, but rather, OK, let's say, dog-tooth transmissions.

Seems to me you yourself have stated that you do have options - heavy stock rims, or expensive aftermarket rims - they're just not attractive to you.

And this is where we get into the old "you made that choice when you built the car."

I too have a former ITA car that moved to ITB; we too had to pitch a bunch of 7" readily-available old factory rims (from 944s) to use only 924-specific, harder-to-find rims. And I know that, like you, my aftermarket options are really going to suck. In fact, they'll be worse than yours, since my bolt pattern is Porsche-specific, and no-one's buying Porsche rims in 15" diameters, let alone 6" wide!!!

I have other things about my car that suck; for example, while you guys can put any spring rate on your struts you want, I have to pay at least $400 for a pair of racing-appropriate torsion bars for the rear of the car, and in fact mine cost $600+ since they're custom - required to get the rate I needed.

That's the bed we've all individually made, and now we can lie in it... or move to a different car. Personally, I'm happy to stay in B, skinny wheels and all!!!

rlward

05-25-2009, 11:34 AM

924Guy

05-25-2009, 12:38 PM

2. I believe when the issue of ITA cars being reclassified came up about 2 years ago, there was mention that there was no competitive advantage of 7" over 6" rims. If that be the case, then to allow 7" in ITB would not affect the status of any other driver/car because it would not put the pressure on to go out and buy another set of whels.

I would suggest a test, using the same tires and same car/driver to verify no advantage is observed. I run SM Hoosiers, they fit both 6" and 7" rims. The Club does tire tests every year I think. We could run this test with both FWD and RWD cars to gain some data and review the results. Of course pressures would have to be adjusted with trial runs to gain the set data for the 2 different sizes.

I would definitely support this... as mentioned, found myself in the same boat - and we too are running the same size tire on 6's as we did on 7's. Don't know if it made the car slower or faster; I got a whole lot faster as a driver in the meantime, with basically no changes to the car, so can't say for myself.

Hmmm... for that matter, we do happen to have 7" rims around probably still too...

Then we'd need someone to either swap rubber back and forth on rims, or get two identical sets of new tires to mount up and compare.

I'd be willing to volunteer my services (car and driver) at a reasonably local track that I know well enough (Waterford would be an EASY way to line this up, cheap, on a practice day - $20 per session!), etc, to pursue this - at least provide the data for a RWD car. But I can't afford to buy two new sets of rubbers - not in my budget, I'm not even really running this year... :( Mid-O would be my other choice, but it is more expensive to get there and run...

EDIT - added bonus, I DO have a full-blown data system to provide quite accurate detailed results too...

gran racing

05-25-2009, 02:31 PM

It's not that simple to just test on one track. Some tracks will work better with a 205 vs 225, others the opposite. Same general thing with the overall contact patch provided using a 225 on a 6" vs 7" rim. For handling tracks, I'd sure take the 7" rim. I know a while back Tom Fowler from OMP Motorsports had done some testing at Road Atlanta using different tire widths. His conclusion was that the wider tire (225s) provided the best results.

Do you think there would be a difference between a 5" and 6" rim? What about a 4" and 6" rim? I'm sure the graph wouldn't be linear, but there have to be points on it where the gains and losses hit more. Even for the sake of perception, ITB drivers will feel the need to purchase the wider rims. It sucks for existing racers in ITB. I too came from ITA and understand that this wheel change makes it more complicated than just swapping out an A for a B using vinyl.

tom91ita

05-25-2009, 02:53 PM

i do sort of agree with Vaughn that some of the comments are muddying the waters. but some of my comments were geared towards what do we do for newer cars?

for newer entrants that are not stuck in the 80's for a chassis like some of us, i think there must be newer cars (e.g., that have done their 5 year required stint in showroom stock) that had rims wider than 6" that should be considered.

since there are several versions of the dodge charger/shelby in ITB, it would be simpler if the VIN rule could let him use the 4 bolt hubs from the "sister" cars.

and one other thing that might get us further into this is the fact that Chrysler Dodge as we recently knew it is going away. flexibility of parts might become more pressing because of the bankruptcy.

hope this does not come across as argumentative but just trying to toss out ideas since some of what was the "norm" will be changing.

tom

p.s. i will get my note out about AWD and turbos (e.g., i see one liter turbos in ITB's future) in the next day or so as well. i might toss in a comment about allowing OEM wheel widths in IT.

JoshS

05-25-2009, 03:20 PM

p.s. i will get my note out about AWD and turbos (e.g., i see one liter turbos in ITB's future) in the next day or so as well. i might toss in a comment about allowing OEM wheel widths in IT.

What I would like to see regarding OEM parts is a blanket statement early in the ITCS that states that STANDARD EQUIPMENT from a listed car may be used, but any aftermarket parts, optional factory equipment, or dealer-installed equipment must adhere to the specifications in the main body of the ITCS.

Knestis

05-25-2009, 03:57 PM

I'd respectfully suggest that it's not possible to "prove" that the 7" wheels don't provide an advantage over 6" wheels. And even if repeatable tests demonstrated that it was the case, the results won't generalize to accommodate all of the other potential variables (e.g., fender width, cars with relatively high race weights).

I'll ignore the question of PERCEPTIONS of competitive advantage. That's another ball of worms.

There just aren't any "good" answers. They all seem "obvious" but only if viewed from one perspective or another. The clearest answer I've heard on the subject is that allowing 7" wheels is a money-saving answer if and only if that's all you've got. Otherwise it's a money spender.

K

shwah

05-25-2009, 10:54 PM

1. When I threw this question out, I was wanting to get some feedback one the idea of considering changes to the rules based on the marketplace and availablility of parts. We have allowed changes base on parts and system developments before. Take the open ECU issue. It has far more serious implications on IT than the question of 7 " rims in ITB. Yet, because there are many drivers running FI, it passed the muster really quite easily. I must have been because the marketplace made somthing available that made working on your OEM ECU outdated or harder or more expensive.

2. I believe when the issue of ITA cars being reclassified came up about 2 years ago, there was mention that there was no competitive advantage of 7" over 6" rims. If that be the case, then to allow 7" in ITB would not affect the status of any other driver/car because it would not put the pressure on to go out and buy another set of whels.

I would suggest a test, using the same tires and same car/driver to verify no advantage is observed. I run SM Hoosiers, they fit both 6" and 7" rims. The Club does tire tests every year I think. We could run this test with both FWD and RWD cars to gain some data and review the results. Of course pressures would have to be adjusted with trial runs to gain the set data for the 2 different sizes.

This, cosidering all the responses to my original inquiry might be the best way to see through everyone's opinion and gain real data on which to base our rule making process.

The ECU issue is a totally different deal. What we have there is making the best of a bad situation created with a badly written/drafted rule. There were two rule steps to get here. Not relevant to this situation at all.

I certainly would not view the results of one test at one track with one driver as evidence either way on this issue.

I don't have any problem going to 7" wheels. I'll start shopping for some tomorrow if that is where we end up - because I do believe they represent a performance improvement, and my tire guy will like not stuffing 225/45 tires on my 6" wheels. HOWEVER. The argument that they are not available at reasonable prices does not hold water to me, especially in 5x100 bolt patterns.

All the VR6 VWs use that bolt pattern, and the first generation of them had 15" wheels.
All the 98-04/5 8 valve VWs came with 15x6 alloys.
You can buy custom configured 15x6 wheels from Compomotive if you like. In 18#, 17.2#, and others with unlisted weight.
Spin Werks will make custom wheels as well. They are in the $200/ea range last I checked on 13x6 sizes for 9# wheels, I imagine they can field a competitive 15" weight also.

The real question that needs to be discussed is justification beyond that it is harder for you to get what you want for a deal. Not all that long ago, I would never have expected the allowance for 15" wheels on any car that had smaller wheels stock, but we have that now. (of course as noted in the other thread, we now have some cars int eh 6" wide classes with larger oem sizes and no stock 16" options that are narrow enough. Now those guys may have more argument - 16x6 - 5x100....).

Greg pointed out that a common response is that folks have already invested in 6" wide rolling stock, and how that is a natural selfish reaction. Well I guess my response is selfish in that I don't want to make a change that may penlaize some, or many, or all of my current compeititors for the benefit of very few.

I would love to get 7" wheels, because I could then share wheel inventory with my prod car racing friends, but I'm not convinced there is a valid argument yet. I'm also not awfully steadfast in that position. I am close enough to the middle to be swayed.

jjjanos

05-26-2009, 10:30 AM

OK, I'm gonna skip all the replies here and go back to address the orig post - 'cause I think there's a bit of wandering induced.

Inevitably when ITB wheel width comes up, it's a discussion of supply. Yet, at the same time, it tends to be a statement of "this will save me money/give better/faster options" rather than "I can't find ANYTHING that will fit, at any reasonable cost."

On that basis right there - it seems that this proposal will not be consistent with IT philosophy, no?

Questionable. We allow a large number of modifications that do not strictly fall in the category of "modifications to those useful and necessary to build a safe race car."

Seems to me you yourself have stated that you do have options - heavy stock rims, or expensive aftermarket rims - they're just not attractive to you.

And this is where we get into the old "you made that choice when you built the car."

I too have a former ITA car that moved to ITB; we too had to pitch a bunch of 7" readily-available old factory rims (from 944s) to use only 924-specific, harder-to-find rims.

That's the bed we've all individually made, and now we can lie in it... or move to a different car. Personally, I'm happy to stay in B, skinny wheels and all!!!

Which somewhat runs contrary to the old "you made that choice when you built the car." People built the car to run in a different class and purchased wheels based on that classification. The Club, changed the rules on them.

For these tweener cars that saw their wheels outlawed, I see no harm in duel classification (run the old class and be uncompetitive, but save on wheels). Nor do I see rules creep/special treatment in allowing these cars to run the wheels they ran in their old class - provided they are not dual classified.

lateapex911

05-26-2009, 03:05 PM

Historically, the ITAC gets requests like this regularly, and it always seems that there are options. But the writer of the request rejects them for some reason, or isn't aware of them.

This case is troublesome merely because the car has been reclassed. Yea, that's the dick sandwich! Now, lots of guys, (Like Dave Gran) jumped up for joy when they got reclassed. But others who are racing on true shoestrings, find the change troublesome. Usually, there is revenue to be gained from the sale of the old 7" rims to ITA drivers...but, in some cases, the car is so unique the rims have no market. (offset, bolt patter combos)

For this specific reason, I'd support a dual listing of the car for a certain period, say three years.

Otherwise, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. And the many already have 8 - 16 rims in the 6" width, plus tires, etc. To change over the entire class is excessive.

Also, Rojer, I can not remember any member of the ITAC stating that there is no difference in performance potential between the widths, or anyone stating that it didn't matter, as you suggest.

shwah

05-26-2009, 05:24 PM

chuck baader

05-26-2009, 05:45 PM

For purely selfish reasons I would like to see 7" in ITB, since the car I am building came OEM with 14 X 7 wheels:shrug: Chuck

Knestis

05-26-2009, 06:18 PM

One thing that I am absolutely against would be some sort of spec line allowance. If a change is made, make it for the whole class.

I can see the argument for a 'sunset' period when a car is moved from A to B that allows dual classification.

Also, if a change were made under the guise of availability of products, it should move right to 7", not 6.5". While 6.5 is pretty common for 15" wheels, and obtainable in 16" wheels, the majority of the C and B cars are on 13 and 14, and I don't ever see 6.5 wide versions of those.

Any line-item exemption or allowance is going to be a very hard sell under current practices.

Like Josh, I'm sensitive to the fact that drivers' lives get complicated by class change. That whole business is complicated because when something like the MR2-to-B initiative gets proposed, there's always folks advocating for both choices - moving and not moving. If we get a request for a move and it makes sense based on our practices and processes, should we do it simply because it looks right on paper? Or should we lean heavily on input letters from drivers? From only those owning examples of the car getting moved...?

The same kind of conflict extends to other follow-on options like grandfathering in 7" wheels or allowing dual classification for cars that get moved. Do we then entertain any and all requests for moves, knowing that each will come with those same allowances? Do we grant the allowances more broadly when someone makes a pitch that, regardless of the circumstances that led to the situation, having 7" wheels is perceived as a competitive advantage?

PERSONALLY I feel very strongly that upsetting the category apple cart with special cases must be done VERY cautiously, for a lot of reasons - Number One being that the members tell us that consistency is a favorite aspect of IT.

K

lateapex911

05-26-2009, 06:30 PM

Kirk, I'm with you. And on your last point, the entire aspect of stability is what I think both you and I hear as the "big thing" (along with the not too much, not too little ruleset) that attracts and keeps drivers and owners to IT.

And for that reason, I think allowing dual classification (as in the case of the E36 in ITR and ITS) is warrented when there are material changes that need to be made to the car to switch classes.

This car is a good example, and if I were king, my policy would be to extend 3 years "granfathering" of dual classification for any car that got moved across the ITB/ITA line, or the ITS/ITR line. Of course, I'm not talking about taking your ITA wheels and running ITB. You want your 7"-ers? Run in ITA. You want to be in ITB? Get the rims.

Knestis

05-26-2009, 07:28 PM

So I could run ITA on 7's and ITB on 6" wheels and double dip...

Or since the wheel widths are maximums, I could run both on the narrower wheels.

And if I want dual classification for my marginal/tweener car I could request that it be moved. I know what the Golf III would have to weigh in ITC and since I'm overweight in B, I'm part way there.

All kinds of interesting options!

K

lateapex911

05-26-2009, 08:58 PM

Interestingly, we're partly there now. SMs, as you know, are douple dipping more often than George Costanza at a party when he hasn't eaten for an hour.

But, they aren't ITA cars, are they? IIRC there are some minor technical issues that make them technically illegal for ITA. Yet, as Josh will attest, I saw 45 of them run at a Sears Point...errr Infineon...race a couple years ago. And ther were 7 actual ITA cars. It's up to the class regulars to decide if that's "OK" or not, and discuss as needed.

(Of course, if there's one guy who's got issues, he's got a lot of paddock walking/talking to do!)

Greg Amy

05-26-2009, 09:22 PM

For purely selfish reasons I would like to see 7" in ITB, since the car I am building came OEM with 14 X 7 wheels:shrug: Chuck

I've always found the width difference between classes to be silly. But, I've been around long enough to understand the historical significance ("back then", we couldn't change diameter, and the vast majority of the cars in the 70's and 80's that fit into ITB/C ran 13" wheels -- 14" if they were "high performance". And 6" width at the time was pretty much 1) all you could get in that diameter at a reasonable price and 2) all you could fit inside the fender wells of those cars -- most cars had 175 or 185 as stock section width...)

I've never been opposed to opening that 7" limitation to ITB and ITC; honestly, the only real opposition to that idea has historically come almost exclusively from competitors in ITB and ITC that already have 6" wheels....purely coincidental, I'm sure ;)

GA

P.S. For purely selfish reasons I now have an ITB car with a 4x114.3 bolt pattern, and I'd REALLY like to stay with 14" wheels, given the wheels and tires are roughly 7-8% of the car's total weight (if you know of a source for "reasonable" weight 14x6 wheels - see, I'm not even trying to be totally selfish by asking for "light" weight - in that bolt pattern at a reasonable price, I'm all ears...) :shrug:

shwah

05-27-2009, 12:16 AM

Greg - don't know the definition of reasonable but look here:

http://www.usacomp.com/ml.htm

Better yet here:

http://www.racerpartswholesale.com/product/2328/Series_82_Wheels

Or here:

http://www.vtoperformance.com/acatalog/copy_of_14_.html

rlward

05-27-2009, 12:59 AM

16 wheels.....that's 4 sets. no wonder some are reluctant to a change.
I think the answer might be in this question: All of the Miata drivers that now run ITA; if you were reclassified to ITB, not IF but WHEN, what would you want the rules to be?

You are now running with 7". you have all your data based on 7" and now you have to unload your useless 7" rims (because ITA has probably allowed 17 X 8 in ITA) and buy 16 rims in 6" and then recalc all your data. It will happen as newer cars enter ITA and cars become reclassed.

Think about that and try to figure what is best for the class or better yet what is best for IT.

Dual classisfication might be ok if ther were weight allowances, but then that might null the reasons for reclassification.

The better answer is to allow any width based on fender clearance regardless of class and move on.

I do understand some concerns about the $ impact to some racers, given current inventory,etc. But the best answer for every car regardless of class is a rim width based on fender clearance. No restriction on diameter. a rule such as that wold be undisputable and continue to serve all It racers based on the car they built today, 30 years ago, and five years from now. (my opinion only)

JoshS

05-27-2009, 01:25 AM

I think the answer might be in this question: All of the Miata drivers that now run ITA; if you were reclassified to ITB, not IF but WHEN, what would you want the rules to be?

Rodger, while I agree with your conclusion (in fact I told the ITAC the same thing a few months ago), I don't agree with the way you got there. There's no reason to believe that ITA Miatas will ever be reclassed to ITB. As far as the ITAC is concerned, the speed of each IT class is "fixed" based on power-to-weight ratio. Faster cars won't get added to ITA forcing existing cars to move down.

The reason why your car got moved down is that at the time its classification was done, there was no power-to-weight system for IT. Classing in IT was haphazard and inconsistent. Now that there's a system, it makes sense to move your car to where it fits correctly, so it can actually compete for a win. And, it was done in response to member input, and it was all weighed carefully.

But anyway, I agree with your conclusion, any size wheel makes more sense than what we have now, since we already have restrictions on fender modifications, and we have require the tire to fit under the fender. Good enough for me. But the argument against, and it's a good one, is that people who already own multiple sets of narrower wheels than they could fit will feel that THEIR investment in wheels is now for naught. And they are right, wider *is* better, even for the same size tire, in most cases. It's a tough pickle. Sometimes leaving well enough alone is the best answer, since we are not starting from scratch.

gran racing

05-27-2009, 08:27 AM

Think about that and try to figure what is best for the class or better yet what is best for IT.

What’s the availability of inexpensive 13” and 14” diameter rims with a 7” width? I admit that my search was very quick but everything I came up with were 6"s wide. (Primarily looked at Tire Rack.) I can't help but think that this could create a new problem of people not being able to source replacement 7" rims at a reasonable cost.

any size wheel makes more sense than what we have now, since we already have restrictions on fender modifications, and we have require the tire to fit under the fender.

Now you'd be impacting the entire category. :( Since some cars will have the ability to stuff a larger rim / tire within the rules, shouldn't that impact the classification process as well?

I wouldn't be surprised if I could get 8" wide rims to work on my car where others have a tough enough time with 6" rims.

shwah

05-27-2009, 09:29 AM

Some random thoughts as I keep thinking about the issue.

The one point that gets made and forgotten each time we have this conversation is that the only people that are FORCED to get new wheels are the ones moved from A to B, because the 7" stuff they have is no longer legal. If the rule were changed to allow A,B,C,S to all use 7" wheels, NO ONE would be forced to replace their wheels, as the 6" stock would still meet the rules. In that light the least disruptive choice is to go wider.

Playing devil's advocate to my own current position on the matter...

Of course wider wheels beget wider tires, which alters the detriment that each pound creates in a sprint race. You could reduce the impact of higher spec line weight, to a point, with more tire - especially on a fwd car. Would this upset some balance of the class?

Greg Amy

05-27-2009, 09:32 AM

Greg - don't know the definition of reasonable but look here:
I'd call those "reasonable". Not "optimal", of course; "optimal" would be 14x6, 8# wheels for $99 each ;).

Thanks!

jjjanos

05-27-2009, 10:18 AM

But the argument against, and it's a good one, is that people who already own multiple sets of narrower wheels than they could fit will feel that THEIR investment in wheels is now for naught. And they are right, wider *is* better, even for the same size tire, in most cases. It's a tough pickle. Sometimes leaving well enough alone is the best answer, since we are not starting from scratch.

1. We didn't leave well enough alone. We moved cars to classes with smaller maximum wheel sizes.
2. We demanded that they confirm to these arbitrary limits without any justification other than some absurd belief that allowing spec line differences would institute rules creep.

The rules were established to serve the purpose of the category. We are are beginning to reverse the causality and the category is beginning to, little by little, serve the purposes of the rules.

shwah

05-27-2009, 10:28 AM

I'd call those "reasonable". Not "optimal", of course; "optimal" would be 13x6, 8# wheels for $99 each ;).

Thanks!

Fixed :D

924Guy

05-27-2009, 11:15 AM

I'd call those "reasonable". Not "optimal", of course; "optimal" would be 14x6, 8# wheels for $99 each ;).

Thanks!

I'll take mine in 15x6... will even let 'em go up to 10# ;)

jjanos's reply here makes it sound like everything's gone to crap once we started moving a coupla cars. I really don't think it's that bad. Maybe things could be further slightly improved, but we're still far better off than when we started!!!

Given the choice between keeping wide wheels and staying in A, waiting for CRX's to run me over... or moving to B, buying all different wheels, and actually being competitive... well, I guess I already made my choice, and I ain't goin' back!!! :026:

ekim952522000

05-27-2009, 02:39 PM

It sounds kinda like I am in the minority on this one but I think the 6" wheels and the small tires they require are what keep ITB so cheap...:shrug:

lateapex911

05-27-2009, 02:41 PM

1. We didn't leave well enough alone. We moved cars to classes with smaller maximum wheel sizes.
2. We demanded that they confirm to these arbitrary limits without any justification other than some absurd belief that allowing spec line differences would institute rules creep.

The rules were established to serve the purpose of the category. We are are beginning to reverse the causality and the category is beginning to, little by little, serve the purposes of the rules.

Classic overstatement and blowing things out of proportion.

1- "Well enough" had MANY competitors crying and moaning that come hell or high water, or even Roger Penske himself, their cars were not ITA cars, and when they were moved, dances of joy occurred simultaneously around America. It was NOT "well enough". Most were only too thrilled to source some new rims,.....and actually be competitive. Overall MANY were helped. Of those, a small percentage were adversley affected enough to raise the flag, such as this example.

2- "Absurd belief"? Too much spicy food for lunch? No, it has been determined that a large number of existing stakeholders have already invested in significant holdings in the proper wheels, and it makes NO sense for THEM to be punished so that one or two new entrants might find life easier.

Really, it's as simple as that. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Is it that hard to understand????????

Sheeesh.

I feel the plight of the shoestring budget guys who are hurt by this, and as I said a temporary measure that would help would be dual classification. It was discussed when the cars were moved, and some on the ITAC supported it, others not, and to my recollection, at that point in time, our CRB liason suggested that he doubted it was something the CRB would want to see, except in extremely rare cases, such as the BMW E36. Not my call, but that's the way it goes. Perhaps now the feeling has changed, but obviously, it's too little too late for the moved cars, who have been there for years.

Greg Amy

05-27-2009, 03:06 PM

...I think the 6" wheels and the small tires they require are what keep ITB so cheap...:shrug:
Actually, 15x7 stuff may be "cheaper".

Tires are a tad cheaper for 14"; for example a 205/50-15 Hoosier R6 retails for $210 versus a 205/55-14 (same circumference) retails for $197. But, if you went with 15x6 wheels then there's no savings in tires.

Plus, the popularity of 15x7 wheels means you have a lot more opportunity for better wheels at a lower price: 15x7 Enkei RFP-1 wheels at 9 pounds each can be had for $200 each, but they offer nothing in 14x6 or 15x6. Chris' examples above show you "can" get reasonable-weight wheels -- but not "optimal weight" at 9 pounds -- at a "reasonable" price -- but not $200 each. You can do that in 15x7.

Yeah, if you went 14x6 then in the long run you'll come out ahead cost-wise in tire savings, but if ultimate performance at a reasonable price is your goal (well, you "can" buy 14x6, 9# Volks for $450 each, but I don't think anyone would call that "reasonable") then you can't get there with 14x6 (or 15x6).

Let's face it: especially with Spec Miata in the ring, 15x7 is where it's at right now...go "there" and your options increase exponentially. - GA

jjjanos

05-27-2009, 03:13 PM

1- "Well enough" had MANY competitors crying and moaning that come hell or high water, or even Roger Penske himself, their cars were not ITA cars, and when they were moved, dances of joy occurred simultaneously around America. It was NOT "well enough". Most were only too thrilled to source some new rims,.....and actually be competitive. Overall MANY were helped. Of those, a small percentage were adversley affected enough to raise the flag, such as this example.

Hmmmm... I recall the majority of comments consisting of bitching and moaning related to (select ala carte)
1. I like running with ITA, don't move me
2. I was happy moving, but not at this weight
3. I was happy moving, but not if I can't afford to put wheels on the car
4. Who cares? I was uncompetive in ITA and I'll be uncompetitive as a fat pig of an ITB car.

2- "Absurd belief"? Too much spicy food for lunch? No, it has been determined that a large number of existing stakeholders have already invested in significant holdings in the proper wheels, and it makes NO sense for THEM to be punished so that one or two new entrants might find life easier.

Yes- absurd belief. The ITAC didn't have to do a GDF thing to the existing stakeholders. The only thing the ITAC had to do was put in a spec line allowance for the cars they moved. Instead, they cling to some absurd limitation on wheel size uniformity that shouldn't have been there in the first place and the reason for this was "rules creep".

RexRacer19

05-27-2009, 03:23 PM

A cheap, light 14X6 wheel? It exists.

http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/WheelCloseUpServlet?target=runWheelSearch&initialPartNumber=TS001S&wheelMake=Kosei&wheelModel=K1+TS&wheelFinish=Silver+Painted&showRear=no&autoMake=Honda&autoModel=Civic+Hatchback&autoYear=1990&autoModClar=&filterSize=14&filterFinish=All&filterSpecial=false&filterBrand=All&filterNew=All&sort=Brand

9.3 lbs
$120 each

I bought two sets when they were at #105. I realize they are not going to work for everyone, but Tire Rack has tons of wheels in 14" sizes that would work for most cars. There are some DIRT cheap 15 poundish wheels on there.

Andy Bettencourt

05-27-2009, 03:24 PM

The 15x7 Spec Miata overflow only applies to those who can run 4x100.

If we can agree that the wider allowance will increase performance, then yes, we are 'forcing' people to upgrade just to keep there current grid spot eveything else being equal. It will COST the majority for the BENEFIT of a handful.

I think we can agree that it IS the philosophy to COST the few for the BENEFIT of the majority, should the situation arise.

JJJ's observations and reasons ring true - except that the MR2, Charger, etc moves were BORN FROM member requests.

Knestis

05-27-2009, 03:28 PM

Depends on one's definition of "forced." I hear from people all the time complaining that (whatever change) has "forced" them to (do whatever) in order to maintain their current level of competitiveness.

K

Greg Amy

05-27-2009, 03:41 PM

The 15x7 Spec Miata overflow only applies to those who can run 4x100.

A cheap, light 14X6 wheel? It exists.
See above, T-Rex. Try that same search for '00 Honda Accord 4 cyl (4x114.3 bolt pattern)...Tire Rack has nothing (as in, zero) in 14" at all, nothing in 15x6, the lightest wheels are all 15x7, and all other 15-inchers are 15x6.5....Chris offered some options, but there's nothing in 9# for under $400-ish, leaving, of course, the Honda Accord in a significant position of performance disadvantage (remembering, of course, our prior arguments where saving money is actually a long-term performance advantage...)

So, since we're all making rules on what's best for individuals' selfish interests...how do we resolve this situation...? <yes, I'm grinning...see where I'm going with this...?> - GA

shwah

05-27-2009, 04:35 PM

Yeah the only way I can find my way into the 9# neighborhood is going with the not available to everyone 13" options. At that size even the old oem stuff that I dig up is typically 12#, so they are reasonably light. Of course it also helps other aspects of my setup, but wheel and tire weight are a part of the decision for sure.

jjjanos

05-27-2009, 04:47 PM

JJJ's observations and reasons ring true - except that the MR2, Charger, etc moves were BORN FROM member requests.

I'm not denying that the inception of the move came from members. I'm just not certain that a majority of the affected drivers were happy about the outcome or really had any say in staying put or moving. Once the numbers were run, the die was cast for adding weight and moving classes.

Personally, keeping the existing size benefits me. I'm much lighter than most of the Germanic euro-tanks and I know whose likely to run out of tire first. I also know, however, that my car would have been parked this season if I had to go out and buy new wheels and losing cars for a season is never good customer service.

Knestis

05-27-2009, 04:54 PM

...We demanded that they confirm to these arbitrary limits without any justification other than some absurd belief that allowing spec line differences would institute rules creep. ...

I'm struck by the fact that what you think is "absurd," I (and I daresay some other ITAC members) view as one of the most crucial first principles of the category.

K

shwah

05-27-2009, 05:15 PM

I also know, however, that my car would have been parked this season if I had to go out and buy new wheels and losing cars for a season is never good customer service.

Really? A new set of pimpy light wheels = 1 (maybe 2 if they are uber-custom-light) race weekend expenses. You run a short season, or are not being fully truthful. Sure buying 3-4 sets of wheels is very expensive, but I would get a set and go racing if faced with that situation.

EDIT - then I would sell my old stuff and use the proceeds to defray the cost of re-stocking in the correct size.

Tristan Smith

05-27-2009, 05:23 PM

So a little off topic, at least off class......

But since we have ITAC members responding here..........why 8.5 wide in ITR? I could have seen 8" or 9", but 8.5" seems odd.

Now, was it because the BMW's that are classed in ITR came stock in many instances with 8.5 widths? Thats great for them, there are a slew of options for their bolt pattern. Not as many for the Nissans, yada yada yada.

Just curious.

Yes I could just buy a set of 17x8 rims, but like it was stated above, I have the "Perception" that I have to have the wider 8.5 rims to be competitive (especially since I am driving the "great white whale", at least weight wise).

lateapex911

05-27-2009, 05:35 PM

I'm struck by the fact that what you think is "absurd," I (and I daresay some other ITAC members) view as one of the most crucial first principles of the category.

K

And I'm struck with the feeling that it's nice to pontificate...........
;)

gran racing

05-27-2009, 06:23 PM

I also know, however, that my car would have been parked this season if I had to go out and buy new wheels and losing cars for a season is never good customer service.

Look, no one wants to purchase new rims. They just don't have the sex appeal of buying that fancy air intake, doing dyno days, or whatever.

On a few boards some people stated that they weren't happy with having to purchase 6" wide rims related to the ITB move. I found it ironic that those same people also talked about doing dyno days, and buying other performance parts. They were willing to dump money into those areas but not a set of junk yard rims which would be less expensive to become competitive.

Even if 15" rims were the least expensive rims ever made, people who have been running 13" or 14" rims now have their gearing changed. Great, just great. I guess I fail to see how all of this fits into the "best for the class" theory.

JeffYoung

05-27-2009, 06:58 PM

I think that is right. I think we were told that some of the Bimmers had 8.5 wide wheels stock, and so we set that as the upper limit.

But, I may be wrong. Things were pretty fluid back then.

So a little off topic, at least off class......

But since we have ITAC members responding here..........why 8.5 wide in ITR? I could have seen 8" or 9", but 8.5" seems odd.

Now, was it because the BMW's that are classed in ITR came stock in many instances with 8.5 widths? Thats great for them, there are a slew of options for their bolt pattern. Not as many for the Nissans, yada yada yada.

Just curious.

Yes I could just buy a set of 17x8 rims, but like it was stated above, I have the "Perception" that I have to have the wider 8.5 rims to be competitive (especially since I am driving the "great white whale", at least weight wise).

Greg Amy

05-27-2009, 08:36 PM

...people who have been running 13" or 14" rims now have their gearing changed. Great, just great.
Not true, Dave, it depends on your tire size. 205/60-13, 205/55-14, and 205/50-15 Hoosiers are all the exact same circumference. Besides, that's totally irrelevant, given that final drives are free in IT.

Look, are we going to legislate based on what's good for a few competitors, or what's good for the status quo, or are we going to do it for what's good for everyone current and future not to mention for the best helath of the class going forward (keep in mind, after ITC is finally dead, ITB is next...)? If you were designing ITB from scratch with no existing knowledge of what it is today, no knowledge of who's got what in wheel "inventory" (and no concern for it, regardless), yet you know that ITS and ITA are running 7" wheels and you have access to the availability of 15x7 versus 13x6, 14x6, or 15x6 wheels, would you actually mandate a 6" wide wheel for ITB and ITC from scratch?

If we are going to legislate based on who's-doing-what now simply in order to maintain the status quo, and we're going to legislate based on what current competitors want, we better DAMN well be prepared to accomodate ALL current competitors, not just those of a few, and we better damn well be prepared to accept what that may mean for the future. 'Cause the current crop of competitors ain't gonna be that forever...

Just sayin'.

GA

StephenB

05-27-2009, 09:13 PM

Not true, Dave, it depends on your tire size. 205/60-13, 205/55-14, and 205/50-15 Hoosiers are all the exact same circumference. Besides, that's totally irrelevant, given that final drives are free in IT.

Look, are we going to legislate based on what's good for a few competitors, or what's good for the status quo, or are we going to do it for what's good for everyone current and future not to mention for the best helath of the class going forward (keep in mind, after ITC is finally dead, ITB is next...)? If you were designing ITB from scratch with no existing knowledge of what it is today, no knowledge of who's got what in wheel "inventory" (and no concern for it, regardless), yet you know that ITS and ITA are running 7" wheels and you have access to the availability of 15x7 versus 13x6, 14x6, or 15x6 wheels, would you actually mandate a 6" wide wheel for ITB and ITC from scratch?

If we are going to legislate based on who's-doing-what now simply in order to maintain the status quo, and we're going to legislate based on what current competitors want, we better DAMN well be prepared to accomodate ALL current competitors, not just those of a few, and we better damn well be prepared to accept what that may mean for the future. 'Cause the current crop of competitors ain't gonna be that forever...

Just sayin'.

GA

I agree with greg... I think we should do whats good for everyone now and for the future. lets keep the current rules! :)

bamfp

05-27-2009, 09:13 PM

SSR makes a 15x6 wheel that is in the 9# range. In a 4x100 4x114 and 5x114. Some other people have asked to allow alternate bolt patterns for an easier choice of wheels. I know that it was turned down.
http://www.ssr-wheels.com/wheels/typec_171819.asp

Blake Meredith

StephenB

05-27-2009, 09:18 PM

I honestly don't know this answer but after reading gregs post is is safe to assume that the ITA cars that were moved to ITB came stock with 7" wide rims? Is it true that cars being classified now and into the future all come stock with 7" wide rims? If all the newer cars being classified have 7" wide rims stock then I may agree with going wider based on the intent and philosophy of IT. the sooner we do the change the better (assuming someday in the near future we will need to) I would rather do it sooner than later while the class is in its "restructure"

Stephen

RexRacer19

05-27-2009, 09:38 PM

See above, T-Rex. Try that same search for '00 Honda Accord 4 cyl (4x114.3 bolt pattern)...Tire Rack has nothing (as in, zero) in 14" at all, nothing in 15x6, the lightest wheels are all 15x7, and all other 15-inchers are 15x6.5....Chris offered some options, but there's nothing in 9# for under $400-ish, leaving, of course, the Honda Accord in a significant position of performance disadvantage (remembering, of course, our prior arguments where saving money is actually a long-term performance advantage...)

So, since we're all making rules on what's best for individuals' selfish interests...how do we resolve this situation...? <yes, I'm grinning...see where I'm going with this...?> - GA

So, when is the best time to bring up that there is no guarantee as to a car's competitiveness, choose your weapon wisely, and there is no such thing as cost control in racing? :rolleyes::)

Z3_GoCar

05-27-2009, 10:00 PM

So, when is the best time to bring up that there is no guarantee as to a car's competitiveness, choose your weapon wisely, and there is no such thing as cost control in racing? :rolleyes::)

More like after the OP objected to having his car moved to ITB and it was moved anyway. As for Rodger's competitiveness in ITA he only had to watch out for double dipping miatae. Also if I remember correctly he's running the OE rims that came with the car, now how messed up is that:shrug:

lateapex911

05-27-2009, 10:02 PM

... is is safe to assume that the ITA cars that were moved to ITB came stock with 7" wide rims?
No.

Is it true that cars being classified now and into the future all come stock with 7" wide rims?
No.

jjjanos

05-27-2009, 11:12 PM

[

I'm struck by the fact that what you think is "absurd," I (and I daresay some other ITAC members) view as one of the most crucial first principles of the category.K

I'm struck with how you don't realize that moving cars around and monkeying around with the classification method (i.e. changing weights) is the antithesis of rules stability.

I'm struck with how you don't realize that changing the car classification method (see: great realignment, see:FWD adder discussion) stinks of competition adjustment and monkeying around with the rules to equalize competition.

I'd find it a lot less absurd - both in terms of the universal limitation and the refusal to make spec line adjustments for the exiled cars - if there was a valid reason for the constraint in the first place.

Really? A new set of pimpy light wheels = 1 (maybe 2 if they are uber-custom-light) race weekend expenses. You run a short season, or are not being fully truthful. Sure buying 3-4 sets of wheels is very expensive, but I would get a set and go racing if faced with that situation.

OK, not 100% truthful. I'd do my 2 races to keep my license current. Pissing away $1,600 for no good reason eats a big chunk of my racing budget. And while I probably could pick stock wheels for a lot less, that's just an additional instance of pissing away money because the pimpy light wheels are going to get bought eventually. I just took a $2,100 hit to the wallet for a non-racing expense and I'm trying to convince myself I shouldn't park the car after this weekend.

rlward

05-28-2009, 01:45 AM

Imagine, if you will, I have those 4 sets of 7" 10#rims (not really, but just imagine) All the reclassed runners have 16 rims in 7" in 10# with tires and you moved us. Now as the market has changed and we have used our old stock of four OEM 20# rims, we are now looking for a reasonable source of 10# 6" rims. But we have oddball bolt patterns and backsets. Spinwerks has exactly 4 15X6" rims to mount on custom centers at $231/each (call her to verify). So that leaves out all the other runners unless they have a more common 4 bolt pattern. Some one suggested I change to 4 bolt, I don't even want to think about that cost 'cause then I have to scrap the 5 bolt inventory I have.

SO the posibilities are:
1. I don't run the next 3 races to buy the last of the 6" rims in existance and then lo and behold some on the (thunder and lightning) ITAB realizes that the best for IT is the change the rules for whatever reason and presto chango the 6" rims are no longer the rule of the land!!!!!and I spent $1000 on useless rims.
2. Don't do anything now and someone else takes a chance and buys those last 4 rims and I am out of luck for any 10# rims.
3. Leave IT for another group.

I don't like any of the above. I know there is no answer that will satisfy the wants/needs of every racer in IT as far a wheel size goes. But a plan to globally address the issue with fore thought needs to be put in place. The market does change, and wheel sizes fall out of favor and are dropped. We need to adapt the rules for IT as a whole so this question is settled once and for all. I am not talking rule creep, but rather rule forethought. In my book fender limits seems the best option as there is a rule in place for tires now that seem to hav pased the test of time. A fender rule would tie the whole thing together in a neat package that is easy to understand and is flexible enough to allow changes in the market over time without further rule changes. After a time, the dust would settle and things would stabilize. Maybe a transition period with added weight would help the situation.

lateapex911

05-28-2009, 04:31 AM

I highly doubt choice number 1 will happen.

#2 is hypothetical and based on lots of supposition. Let's suppose the we look at the actual situation...

#3 isn't the "budget choice" either...

So, let's stop supposing. Tell us what you actually DID run in ITA. ANd what size are the stock rims??

Finally, I see you seem attached to the Dodge...that's fine, but emotional attachments often carry prices. That price could be less common wheels due to the unusual bolt pattern and offset, even when new. Trust me, I know it's not easy to find wheels in the older sizes. I need 13" x 7 ...they don't grow on trees.

And, also, lets be pragmatic....your car has been classed since the 80s....over 20 years. In the mid to late 90s, big changes occurred that made your car utterly uncompetitive in ITA. (You might not have felt those changes, but the class was home to a dominant car, and the Dodge was rendered a has been). Your car was given a new lease on life in a move to ITB. Most guys who have been moved from ITA to ITB and have added to this thread have said that it was a gift. Heck, some guys have thanked me personally.

In other words, I'm having a hard time seeing how changing everything so that you can benefit will serve the entire class. Because if the rule is changed, here are the KNOWN outcomes:

Some cars can fit wider tires, others can not. Therefor, competitive balance is upset. This is BAD.
The cars that can benefit might be the top dogs currently. Now we could be looking at a narrower choice of top dogs. That's BAD.
Perhaps there is ONE car that really benefits and becomes the car to have. Again, very BAD.
Track records are reset, solely due to the equipment change. Bad.
Many see the need to scrap their stock of rims and pony up, thinking that the new size is faster. Might not be...at least for them. Money wasted. Bad.
Many others flat can't fit them. Now we're saying "Tough crappola" to THOSE guys, instead of the vast minority of the cars that have been moved from ITA AND have difficulty finding light ....yet cheap...wheels.

Again, I see no solution that doesn't hurt MORE people...

gran racing

05-28-2009, 08:18 AM

Besides, that's totally irrelevant, given that final drives are free in IT.

Many ITB competitors are using 225/45/13 hoosiers which have a circ. of 65.8. The 225/45/15 has a circ. of 72.0. That's a decent difference. While final drives are free, we are now going against one of the intended purposes of this suggested 7" wide rule change.

I personally use a size where the circ could stay the same if I switched to 15s.

If you were designing ITB from scratch with no existing knowledge of what it is today

That's the problem Greg, we're not designing any IT classes from scratch. If we were, my focus would be on not allowing any modifications to ECUs - it has to be bone stock. Yet again we're already a ways down that road. I understand the point you're trying to make, I just don't agree with it.

are we going to legislate based on what's good for a few competitors, or what's good for the status quo, or are we going to do it for what's good for everyone current and future not to mention for the best helath of the class going forward (keep in mind, after ITC is finally dead, ITB is next...)?

For a minute I thought you were now convinced staying with the 6" width rule is the right move. LOL The few competitors - that would be the cars moving from ITA to ITB, not all of the existing ITB and ITC drivers.

We have a couple of people here who are upset about buying new 6" wide rims. I'm sure I'd be frustrated by the change myself if in their shoes. Well, actually I was in a similar situation but was absolutely psyched about the change. I still get it though.

Since I highly doubt the dual classification idea will be approved, what about adding a percentage of the car's min weight to cars which are being moved from ITA to ITB if they want to run 7" rims? Make this allowance good for one year to enable competitors to make their decisions on how they want to proceed. I know it still won't make everyone happy; nothing will.

Greg Amy

05-28-2009, 09:10 AM

So, when is the best time to bring up that there is no guarantee as to a car's competitiveness, choose your weapon wisely, and there is no such thing as cost control in racing? :rolleyes: :)
Ah, the last desperate gasp of Improved Touring debate...once breached, that position ensures we're close to the end of the discussion... ;)

Hmmmm.....though, given that the whole original reason for the 6"-wide limitation was for cost containment, you might be on to something there... :)

While final drives are free, we are now going against one of the intended purposes of this suggested 7" wide rule change.
Which is...?

That's the problem Greg, we're not designing any IT classes from scratch.
Yes, we are. ITR, for example. All done as a way to increase/maintain the viability of Improved Touring as automotive - and aftermarket - technology moves forward (e.g., ECU rule, shericals, threaded-bosy shocks) Why not keep those same goals in mind to ensure the viability of ITB and ITC going forward?

For a minute I thought you were now convinced staying with the 6" width rule is the right move. LOL
You (rightfully) mis-read my intent for participating in this discussion. Though I purchased in ITB car on a lark, I really have no dog in the fight; it is not my intention to play in that gene pool in perpetuity. If you suggest to change the width rule, I won't oppose it; you fight to maintain it, I won't oppose you.

No, the REAL reason I'm participating in this fight is to illustrate the ABSURDITY (sorry, couldn't resist) and lack of logic when discussing such issues. You will find VERY FEW existing ITB competitors that agree with the idea of changing the width rule, and you will find VERY FEW non-ITB (or ITC) competitors that really care about it. However, you will find more than a few guys that may be considering entering into ITB (willingly or unwillingly) that find this rule perplexing. Is that a barrier to entry into ITB? And, if so, isn't that nothing but a "protectionist" measure for the status quo?

Dave, what if it was proposed to increase the ITA and ITS wheel widths to 8.5"; would you even care? Would you write a letter about it? If you did care, would you fight it as vociferously as I infer you'd fight a change in ITB? If you have even the slightest "no" to those questions, then what we're talking about here is what's good for Dave Gran, not what's good for ITB. And that's a TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE basis for rules-making.

GA

Knestis

05-28-2009, 09:46 AM

Andy Bettencourt

05-28-2009, 09:51 AM

So the questions remain:

1. Is the 6" wheel limitation in ITB/ITC pushing current competitors OUT?
2. Is the 6" wheel limitation in ITB/ITC a barrier to new cas being built?
3. Would moving to 7" (or totally open for that matter) upset the current membership?
4. Would moving to 7" (or totally open for that matter) draw more cars/drivers INTO Improved Touring?
5. Is there REALLY a supply problem currently or just a lack of mid-range choices? Heavy stuff and expensive stuff seem available.
6. How long do you 'hold' on the rules in the name of stability - at the potential cost of 'futures'? What are the appropriate triggers for a change? (See questions 1-4)
7. Do you force change and evolution (like stock class Solo) or do you try and archive and protect every driver and every car?

Andy Bettencourt

05-28-2009, 10:41 AM

Greg,

If you actually took a position, what would it be and why?

jjjanos

05-28-2009, 11:30 AM

I'm going to try to make a point here that's CLEARLY in the realm of semantics, but argue that it's crucial to this - and a lot of other - conversations: It's problematic to apply a term or concept to different levels of granularity, without recognizing that they mean different things or have different implications.

For example, arguing that (whatever) is the same for the entire category as it is to individual cases of cars or entrants IN that category can result in bad policy and unintended consequences, or at least result in specious arguments.

"Competition adjustment" - As traditionally applied, these are make/model-specific changes in specification, applied to either improve the competitive position of one car or to hobble one other. They are almost always based on observed on-track competitiveness, most notably from results at high-profile events like the Rub-Offs. The current ITAC changing a process or practice applicable to the entire category is by definition not a competition adjustment, EVEN IF some individual examples of car get "adjusted" as a result of being out of line.

Which is some fine and fancy footwork that allows you to reconcile making competition adjustments while remaining true to the doctrine of no competition adjustments. Essentially, you are trying to argue that it wasn't cheating "cause Honey, I was thinking of you the entire time."

1. Whether they admit it, and whether they recognize it, the ITAC used observed on-track performance and other similar taboo observations in determining that changes to the categorization method was required. If the ITAC didn't use this, they wouldn't have known that there was any need to alter the categorization or have a Great Realignment. The Great Realignment and the FWD adder proposal did not derive from "First Principles" and a thought experiment. They occured because of what was observed. The fact that the realignment worked does not mean that this was not a prod-like adjustment; The fact that it worked means that IT was better at it than Prod.

2. The changes were done because some cars were better and some cars were worse and the ultimate purpose was to adjust the competition balance. Whether it is done to an entire community (IT policy) or specific members (Prod policy) is irrelevant - that's a matter of scope, not intent. Again, the fact that it was needed to restore competition balance doesn't mitigate the competition adjustment - the catch all "no car guaranteed competiveness" clause already addressed the concerns of the cars that needed realignment.

3. Prod makes changes that renders the investment made in certain cars and equipment on those cars less valuable. Changing FWD adders does the same thing. Again, only a difference in scope.

I'm in favor of getting the system correct, but let's call these changes what they are - competition adjustments.

Greg Amy

05-28-2009, 11:31 AM

If you actually took a position, what would it be and why?
In a vacuum, I see no reason for the difference in wheel widths for ITC and ITB. If I were designing from scratch today, I'd probably leave 'em open to the 7" as in ITA, primarily due to the "apparent" wider availability of 7" wide wheels these days. However, I understand the historical significance of the rule, primarily based on the availability and cost of wheels at the time, as well as a mindset approaching the "average" wheel widths of the cars classified back in the 80's (typically 5" or 5.5", with 6" being offered on the performance high side; e.g. the 14x6 of the 1983 Rabbit GTi versus the 13x5.5 for the regular Rabbit LX), on par with the ITAC's recommendation to go with 8.5" wheels in ITR due to those being stock on the BMW.

I am not insensitive to the situation faced by current competitors vis-a-vis potentially making their wheel inventory obsolete. However, I do not believe current inventory should be a decisive factor in the decision (i.e., it should be considered in the whole of the decision, but not used as a go/no go factor). If that were a deciding factor, then the ITAC would have no standing for moving a car from ITA to ITB (and, in fact, having the same size wheels would make those decisions easier).

Further, one cannot ignore that if the rule were to change, the rules would not REQUIRE 7" wheels. I question the significance of the performance value of a 225 tire on 7" wheels over a 225 tire on 6" wheels, so I'm not too concerned about it. As such, the existing "inventory" of 6" wheels would not truly become obsolete.

But, given we're not in a vacuum, I would want to research the general availability of wheels in 13, 14, and 15 inch by 6 wide versus 7 wide for the vast majority of cars currently in the class and those that potentially could be added or moved within the next 3-5 years (effectively ignoring the outliers that no one actually drives), and choose the width that most effectively covers the field with available, reasonably-priced, and reasonable-weight wheels. From extremely simple personal knowledge and anecdotal evidence, that size appears to be 15x7.

GA

spnkzss

05-28-2009, 12:06 PM

What if we just removed the width rule all together in IT? What kind of implications would we look at there? You can only go so wide because you have to stay within' the body limits.

Keep the diameter rule the same, maybe. I haven't quite figured out the reasoning for diameter much either, but I'm sure someone would be happy to fill me in. With the shock rules in IT you wouldn't want to run a 225/25/19. Who knows, maybe you would.

I can see how this could snowball.

Me personally, think that ITB/ITC should be allowed 7", but my only REAL reason to me is I can't figure out why they shouldn't be allowed. :shrug:

lateapex911

05-28-2009, 12:25 PM

What if we just removed the width rule all together in IT? What kind of implications would we look at there? You can only go so wide because you have to stay within' the body limits.

The diameter allowance was instituted because it was felt that performance benefits gained by increasing wheel diameters were highly debateable, and minimal in scope in the best cases. Lot's of balancing tradeoffs are involved there.

Width, however, is another story.

So, my answer to your question of implications is my bulleted points above;
http://72.167.111.130/forums/showpost.php?p=288686&postcount=70

Knestis

05-28-2009, 01:06 PM

Which is some fine and fancy footwork that allows you to reconcile making competition adjustments while remaining true to the doctrine of no competition adjustments. ...

1. Whether they admit it, and whether they recognize it, the ITAC used observed on-track performance and other similar taboo observations in determining that changes to the categorization method was required. ...

2. The changes were done because some cars were better and some cars were worse and the ultimate purpose was to adjust the competition balance. Whether it is done to an entire community (IT policy) or specific members (Prod policy) is irrelevant ...

...I'm in favor of getting the system correct, but let's call these changes what they are - competition adjustments.

I could couch this in terms of "agree to disagree" but I prefer "You are wrong." :)

You have a definition of "competition adjustment" that's very different in important functional ways but that's fine, as long as the audience understands the distinctions I'm trying to make.

You're also ascribing motivations to others without knowing much about what's really going on. Again, that's understandable, you're always allowed your opinions, and it's only a problem for me if others buy into your suppositions. I was charged by the ITAC to review a bunch of ITB cars against current practices, most of which I have absolutely no understanding of in terms of their on-track performance. And frankly, I don't trust my own observations for those with which I AM familiar, because I know good and well they are biased and based on gawdawful small samples of cases with a zillion uncontrolled variables.

I totally understand your point about obvserved performance contributing to the "motivations" for looking at problematic cases but there's a world of difference between that and using those differences as evidence to actually change race weights (for example). Members perceive inequalities and ask us to "do something." All we can do is review make/model specs to see if they align to current, consistent practices and make a recommendation to the Board for a change if they don't.

The difference between that and "The Renault Encore is too fast, give it 200 pounds" should be self-evident. That's all I care about.

Again, these can be narrow distictions (or "fancy footwork?") but I believe strongly that there's a FAR lower chance of shenanigans when changes - call them whatever you want - are applied to the entire category in transparent, repeatable ways; than when they are applied as exceptions to individual make/model cases. Those shenanigans are to be avoided. Change is not inherently evil.

THAT'S the key, important difference in our understandings, I think...

K

StephenB

05-28-2009, 01:25 PM

I am a current competitor in ITB and I for personal reasons (Cost, Development, consitancy, fitment, ect) as a 10 year member to ITB see no reason to change the rules that have been in place for the entire 10 years I have been competing in the class. The only "Reason or argument" that has been posted in this thread (In my opinion) for 7" wheels would be for cars that come STOCK with 7" rims. I do think that if we are classifying cars that come stock with 7" rims then at that time we need to consider change. If we change the rules it should have nothing to do with availability or cost for the members regardless on how many are affected.

I have copy and pasted Andys questions and given my own answers as I think he asks the important questions that the ITAC should ask if they ever decide or even start to think of making changes to the current rule set. (At this time nothing is posted in Fasttrack or on the SCCA.Com forums seeking feedback)

1. Is the 6" wheel limitation in ITB/ITC pushing current competitors OUT? I think the ONLY way to measure this is based on the # of letters ALREADY sent to the ITAC (but maybe the ITAC can seek feedback from the IT community)

2. Is the 6" wheel limitation in ITB/ITC a barrier to new cas being built? I think the ONLY way to measure this is based on the # of letters ALREADY sent to the ITAC (but maybe the ITAC can seek feedback from the IT community)

3. Would moving to 7" (or totally open for that matter) upset the current membership? YES this would upset me (who is part of the current membership)

4. Would moving to 7" (or totally open for that matter) draw more cars/drivers INTO Improved Touring? Possible due to the fact that this was not addressed for cars being reclassified from ITA to ITB which incurred a cost to current SCCA members that may still be upset and chose to park their car in the garage.

5. Is there REALLY a supply problem currently or just a lack of mid-range choices? Heavy stuff and expensive stuff seem available. Not a valid reason for a Rule Change. I can't change the size of my brakes because the Brake carrier on my caliper is no longer available (Or should I write a letter?)

6. How long do you 'hold' on the rules in the name of stability - at the potential cost of 'futures'? What are the appropriate triggers for a change? (See questions 1-4)Interesting question (best one on this thread :) ) I would say that IF newer cars being classified come stock with 7" rims Then we need to look at making a change so that the class can continue to grow with newer cars being classified. That would be the turning point for me. I do not think that a large number of current or future members are not joining ITB because of the wheel widht rule. I would argue that the wheel width rule has nothing to do with the growth of the class other than those affected by the re-classification process

7. Do you force change and evolution (like stock class Solo) or do you try and archive and protect every driver and every car? In my opinion we should only force change and evolution if we start to see a large decline in participation in ITB and a lack of new car builds. This year ITB is as strong in my region as it has been for the last 7 or 8 years and again this year several new cars have been built across the country that I am awaire of. To me the class seems healthy as is.

Sephen

I'll be honest I am not going to write to the ITAC until AFTER they ask for feedback because for some reason they decide they want to change the rules that have been in place for some 25+ years. Until that time how would I know they are even interested in changing the rules and/or expecting a letter?

Andy Bettencourt

05-28-2009, 02:24 PM

JJJ,

I am also going to tell you that you are wrong. What happened was simple. A member of the ITAC, developed a 'process'. That process was designed for new car classifications because there was no set way to do things. Call it an early effort to be consistant and repeatable. Darin Jordan deserves much credit for this.

We then applied the process to the category to see what stuck out. It was no surprise to anyone that the overdogs were too light for the bogies and the underdogs were too heavy. A BROAD sweep of the category (anything over or under by 100lbs was looked at) showed some bad situations - on the plus and minus sides. So the great realignment 'reset' those cars to exactly how they would have been if they were classes 'newly' at that moment in time because they were so far out of whack. The process wouldn't have been as effective as it was if the outliers weren't measured by the same stick to bring everyone to center so we could move forward as a category. It had NOTHING to do with direct on-track performance.

Greg,

The only flaw I see in your thought process is that we would have in a few years what we have now - and had 5 years ago. What if in 5 years 15x7's are in short supply? What if SM decides 16x8 is the spec wheel? Under the assumption that the supply of wheels is dynamic, why not just allow anything that meets the fitament rules?

Not saying that is what I would like to do, just saying that it might be the best long-term solution...and might be the worst short term solution as well. Is a happy medium the right thing or do we just rip the band-aid off really fast in hopes of no long-term scars?

Andy Bettencourt

05-28-2009, 02:31 PM

shwah

05-28-2009, 03:37 PM

JJJ,
Is a happy medium the right thing or do we just rip the band-aid off really fast in hopes of no long-term scars?

If a change were made - don't pussy-foot around it. Rip away. The only way any new wounds created will heal is over time. The sooner done, the sooner healed.

JoshS

05-28-2009, 03:57 PM

The only "Reason or argument" that has been posted in this thread (In my opinion) for 7" wheels would be for cars that come STOCK with 7" rims.

I mentioned it earlier in this thread, but I'll say it again -- I think this is a different issue, and can be addressed in a different way.

I think there's plenty of good reasons to explicitly allow any STOCK part to be used in IT, even if it's in violation of some other rule. So if an ITB car came from the factory with a 7" wheel, then the factory wheel (not any wheel in that size, but specifically, the factory wheel) should be allowed. Aftermarket parts would have to abide by the "authorized modifications" provisions of the ITCS. That is specifically the title of section 9.1.3.D. I would support a rule change proposal to that effect.

Now, should the authorized modifications allow something wider than 6" is a different question.

Greg Amy

05-28-2009, 04:29 PM

What if we just removed the width rule all together in IT?

JJJ,
Under the assumption that the supply of wheels is dynamic, why not just allow anything that meets the fitament rules?
A reasonable suggestion. I think you'd find that the vast majority of the cars currently classified in ITB/C could not fit a whole helluva lot more wheel/tire in their bodies within the other rules anyway. Opening the wheel rules (again, done Long Ago for cost-containment) would be unlikely to result in significant improvements in performance (and if a VW Rabbit GTi guy wants to run 22x8 blingers under there, hell, I say knock yerself out...:) ).

I suggest, however, that as we move on to new(er) cars being classified, you'll find that the potential ITB cars can and do come with 15" wheels at a minimum (are modern cars still shipped with 14" wheels?), and very likely 7" diameters stock. This is purely a "gut" feel, I have not done even a hint of research on that... - GA

Andy Bettencourt

05-28-2009, 04:39 PM

I agree on the diameter comment but I think 7" wide rims are not typical of the cars that make up ITB (grocery getters).

jjjanos

05-28-2009, 05:37 PM

You have a definition of "competition adjustment" that's very different in important functional ways but that's fine, as long as the audience understands the distinctions I'm trying to make.

I understand the distinction. I consider it a distinction without a difference.

I was charged by the ITAC to review a bunch of ITB cars against current practices, most of which I have absolutely no understanding of in terms of their on-track performance.

Which, IMO, is close to, but quite a non-competition adjustment. Applying current practice in a uniform, blind manner is content neutral. Applying the current practice to a subset of cars begins to smell of adjustments. Why were those cars selected? I suspect because they were "out of whack," and that's where subjectivity enters and becomes a comp adjustment. They were picked because their current potential/actual performance was felt to be out of line with their true/process potential.

I'm not saying that hitting the cars most of whack first is the wrong approach. Resources get allocated to the greatest need. It's the implication that the list is an ending point.

I totally understand your point about obvserved performance contributing to the "motivations" for looking at problematic cases but there's a world of difference between that and using those differences as evidence to actually change race weights (for example).

The differences have to be used - either upfront or in the back of the mind - when adjusting the process (see FWD revised adder) - if only as a sanity check. Example - Aren't different engine makes given different HP% gains in IT trim? Those numbers came from somewhere and if Studebaker came out with a new engine that allows for quantum leap in HP gain in IT trim, I'd be shocked if the old 10% gain assumption continued to be used in the face of a 25% gain for a new generation of engines.

Members perceive inequalities and ask us to "do something." All we can do is review make/model specs to see if they align to current, consistent practices and make a recommendation to the Board for a change if they don't.

I've got no problem with the Von Braun approach where someone pushes the button and doesn't care where it comes down, but people with influence have been discussing changing the FWD adder and including a torque adder and ..... At that point, the operator stops pushing the button and starts to pick the target. Moreover, the selection of the values for the new, hypothetical inputs will be guided and determined by the goal of preserving overall category balance. And I encourage such guidance.

It's the Holy than Thou/we're better than Prod & GT because we don't do what they do that bothers me, because, ultimate IT does and will do that. The real difference is that IT does it better and that's entirely to the credit of the ITAC. Moreover, if/when the ITAC gets a better handle on torque or aero or FWD or KERS, they'll still do it better.

In this particular case - drivers forced to buy new wheels because of class movement - allowing a spec line adjustment would neither have been a competition adjustment, a denouncement of uniformity, nor the slippery slope. It would have been a narrow and limited exception applying common sense to an arbitrary standard and it could have been uniformly applied. I.e. Only to cars that moved classes. Instead, we had adherence to the standard for the sake of the standard.

Stuff

I'll acknowledge that I'm wrong and the primary motivation was to provide consistency. That the adjustment resulted in overdogs getting fat and underdogs getting light and the unwashed middle getting little of anything suggests that the codification had to guided by what was occuring on track.

The fact that the end result was so good tells me a great deal of thought went into codification, particularly because once this was emplaced, recalibration wasn't going to happen. To get it this right that specific attributes needed to have approximate factors without real world observations implies far too much luck. The adders weren't just picked at random - something guided them.

StephenB

05-28-2009, 06:35 PM

Stephen,

Why is your opinion different if a car came with 7" wheels stock? You say that on one hand and on the other you state, with no reservations, that "If we change the rules it should have nothing to do with availability or cost for the members regardless on how many are affected."

The only reason I could see you wanting a change based on stock sizes WOULD be availablility (like, I already HAVE them) and cost (like, I already HAVE them).

Andy,

I think Josh basically answered it for me. I think that the Purpose of IT is for cars to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition. To that end, cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer's specification except for modifications permitted by these rules.

That is the only reason that I think we would ever need to change to a 7" rule. NOT because of Cost or availability. Again if was because of Cost or Availabilty I should be able to change brake calipers due to the Availability of them. Basically the purpose and intent of the IT catagory superseeds (sp) the rule limitations of 6" on cars that are being classified that come from the factory with 7".

Hope this clarifies and you see why I think it is different.
Stephen

Knestis

05-28-2009, 08:59 PM

>> Applying the current practice to a subset of cars begins to smell of adjustments. Why were those cars selected? I suspect because they were "out of whack," and that's where subjectivity enters and becomes a comp adjustment.

Ah - good question. For the ITB data collection effort, we started with the cars we could find evidence were being raced, but the list grew to include pretty much the entire class, less a handful of real oddballs. "How many" get submitted to the Board for approval is still an open question. We are obligated to do any that members request and, while it's one popular position within the ITAC that we should do a wholesale Great Realignment II, we're not sure the Board will be receptive to the idea.

The "which ones" question might indeed be answered based on how much they are "out of whack" but it's important to remember that we define that based on the difference between the current spec weight and that derived from the current process - not (I repeat, NOT) based on on-track performance. In some cases, this is a LOT - 600, 700, or as much as 900+ pounds in one case. Most of those that are off by more than 200# are too heavy and of course, if the difference is enough, it's an indicator of a candidate for a move to C.

Note that B is kind of a special case because it didn't get a lot of attention during the GR, currently popular cars span a range of generations of technology, and it doesn't take a lot of variability for cars to slop into the specification envelope defined for C.

K

rlward

05-29-2009, 01:08 AM

Andy, Rip it off. A fitment rule should pass the test of time if you think about it...regardles of car or class now nad in th future,even if a car happened to b reclassified.

Steven, if cost and availability are not a concern, then your logic would put a strain on all racers in all venues. Cost and availability is a concern to all sanctioning bodies, just look at formula 1.

As far a brake caliper availability, rules allow update or backdate of components, that would include brakes i think.

If the rules are to change, the fitment approach is the best answer for all. It will survive the test of time witout further changes to the rules. An if so, BRING IT ON, write the letter and get on with it! We will all get over the impact in a short time and go on with our planning.

Better to do it now than to wait. Write the letters to bring the wheel issue to a head..Or is this the letter writing place. Fitment rules already existand that would put an end to this seemingly endless debate.

lateapex911

05-29-2009, 05:10 AM

Rodger...seriously, don't ignore my questions...what wheel did you run in ITA, and what is the stock size for the car?

Ed Funk

05-29-2009, 07:46 AM

Man, I've tried to stay out of this thread! I'm much better at cracking wise than at making logical arguments (at least that's what the previous Mrs. Funk said).

After a brief perusal of the cars listed in B and C, there are very few that came from the factory with more than 6" wheels, so run stock or run 6", where's the logical argument (note the word logical) to do anything else?

If we're to start discussing what's good for me is good for the class is good for the category, that is a BS argument. If you can logically prove otherwise, I'd love to run a single cam VTEC in the C car rather than the CVCC, it'd be cheaper, more HP, easier. ----and that'd be good for me and by extension good for the class and the category, maybe even the club and the whole world! Crap!---there I go cracking wise again!

Knestis

05-29-2009, 08:26 AM

The most current car that I can remember talking about for ITB is the Honda Fit. It appears to come stock with 15x6" wheels, although the new model may have 16x6.

As is typical, we have confounding (if not conflicting) arguments in the discussion. At this point, I'm tempted by Josh's reminder that folks SHOULD be allowed to run what came on their car, and that wheel allowances - like all other modifications - should be allowed and not required. Heck - a very liberal interpretation of the CURRENT rule might well allow a person to run stock wheels larger than 6" in ITB, if the car came with them. That issue can go away with a single line in the rules.

Beyond that - ignoring the availability issue which I personally think is a non-problem, and is even less so if "stock size" is allowed - the only folks in a bind currently are those whose cars have been moved. And only then, specifically from A to B since that's the only next-door class combination where the dimension allowance changes. I'm afraid that I can NOT see the big picture logic of making a substantive change to the entire category to accommodate those limited number of cases, which to my way of thinking leaves only the option of considering "transitional" rules to ease the pain for a few.

My personal concern there is that I've been in the Club long enough to know that once that barn door is open, the horses are headed to the horizon. That kind of freedom will be cited (perhaps rightly so) as rationale for other exceptions, and gifts given are typically very hard to take away. But let's try:

Rodger - Which would you prefer to ease your transition...?

1. Your car will be dual listed for two years - and only two years - in A and B, and you can run either within the existing rules

2. Your car will be allowed to run 7" wheels for two years, and only two years, with additional weight to be determined by the ITAC

K

gran racing

05-29-2009, 08:26 AM

Roger, I understand your frustration with having to source new wheels, I really do. I'm not so sure that your suggestions are truly what's best for the class though. For example:

If the rules are to change, the fitment approach is the best answer for all.

ONLY if the classification process takes into consideration what cars can fit what. Part of the argument here is some of the newer cars in ITB came with 7" rims. I know for a fact many came with 5.5" rims. Just by knowing that it's not so unlogical to reason that a car which came with 7" rims would be able to fit a larger tire using the fender rule than the one that came with stock 5.5" rims. So now some cars are receiving an advantage over others since that is not part of the current classification process. Oh, best of luck to the ITAC collecting all of that data.

What's the true motivation for this proposed rule change? Is it just to make the transition easier for cars moving from ITA to ITB? That's the only reason I can imagine. It's not to save the class as a whole money, cause in reality it will have the opposite effect. Is it for years in the future for cars that we haven't even classed yet? If so, what specific cars are they, what's the OEM rim widths, and the bolt patterns? How many cars in ITB came stock with 7" wide rims or greater?

what is the stock size for the car?

A quick google search said 6" wide. The diameters varied on the Charger depending upon the year.

quadzjr

05-29-2009, 08:34 AM

I just bought a set of 14x6 wheels for my new ITB car! Leave the rules how they are.. I don't want to buy another set before I get to use the ones I just bought!

ebassett

05-29-2009, 11:09 AM

Hi guys,

I am new to IT but just wanted to ask a question. Doesn't it really boil down to where the rubber meets the road? Doesn't a 225 14x6 have the same contact patch as a 225 15x7? Why not have a tire width limit instead of a wheel limit?

gran racing

05-29-2009, 11:27 AM

Doesn't a 225 14x6 have the same contact patch as a 225 15x7?

They do not have the same contact patch. On a 6" rim using Hoosiers, the tire is "forced" onto the rim causing the contact patch to be not as optimal as using a 7" or 8" wide rim.

Why not have a tire width limit instead of a wheel limit?

Keep in mind that different tire manufactures have different widths for even the same tire description. For example, compare a Hoosier 225 tire with a the older RA-1 Toyos. It has always seemed a bit odd to me. Guess it's like how even the same size shoe or pant size is different between manufactures.

rlward

05-30-2009, 01:14 AM

Jake, I ran one set of 7" rims I had just purchased for 2 races (1 weekend) My other set was 6" OEM rims.
K, either of your suggestions hold any value unless I only race fro 2 more years or my current wheels break.
DaveOther cars in ITB are receiving an advantage now as I am runing 20# wheels and more than 50#over weight.
Steve That is exactly my point. I id buy wheels and then all of a sudden, I'm in ITB and can only find heavy wheels in 6" I have found another set of OEM round boat anchors.
In order to keep updated, our rules in general should address the maket changes. Otherwise we will rule ourselves out of existance. If a car came with wider wheels than the current rules allow, are we not ruling towards a potential heel failure? Keep in mind wheel sizes are engineered for a cars weight by the manufacturer. When we race we put additional stress on the entire car and in aprticular to the tirs and wheels.
This whol thing about sizes seem cotrarry to common sense. The fitment cocept still seems the most consistant, yet is still adaptable to any changes whatever happens in the future.

While I started this discussion based on my particular needs, the comments posted have led me to believe a change may be possible without upsetting the apple cart too much. We need to have more foresight than hindsight. My fear is no different than anyone elses except I have already been bitten once. No one wants to buy or have a supply of wheels that wont be anadvantage for their car. I think I will defer the purchase of another set of wheels untill later and see if there is a glimmer of hope that foresight will prevail.
I want to thank everyone for their comments. To those that agree the rule should be revised, thank you for supporting this. To those opposed, thank you for your thoughtfull insight of the other side of the issue. To those that just read but did not comment, now is your turn to voice your opinion.

Knestis

05-30-2009, 11:42 AM

Thanks, Rodger - that's helpful information.

K

gran racing

05-30-2009, 09:20 PM

DaveOther cars in ITB are receiving an advantage now as I am runing 20# wheels and more than 50#over weight.

Wait a second. I sympathize with your need to purchase new rims however that statement a bit funny to me. First, you're being moved from a class where the car in a competitive field has absolutely no shot at winning. Now you're moved to a class where you're in a MUCH better position even with those wheels and weight. You also need to keep in mind that you are choosing not to purchase rims. It would be similar to me complaining that almost everything with my car had to be custom built. I can either choose to use the original equipment (Shelby = 6" rims, right?) or spend the money on other better options.

During the ITB impound I pointed out to Jake the Sabb and implications of using fender width to determine maximum wheel sizes. The front fenders (the rear were tweeked a bit) could easily be an additional 3" inches wider than it was. Using the chalk method and with decent tire pressures, I wouldn't be totally surprised if it were an additional 5"s. (It has Hoosier 225s) I also looked a Volvo, plenty of room there too.

rlward

05-31-2009, 10:59 AM

Dave, I don't doubt what you say about being able to stuff (6 + 3) 9" wide rims under the Saab. Maybe 11", but I don't thin there is a great supply out ther of those wheel and even then a tire would be a problem. Same with th Volvo. Given the tire sizes run, 7 or 8 is probably optimum.
fitment still better. Maybe a tweak would be all rims the same size. Dos that help anybody?

gran racing

05-31-2009, 11:15 AM

There are a few circle track wheel manufactures that would be happy to supply those rims. I sure would give them a try at handling tracks such as Lime Rock Park.

I guess my point is that other than a temporary dual classification, I'm not sure there's an easy answer that will make everyone happy.

rlward

06-01-2009, 01:01 AM

There are a few circle track wheel manufactures that would be happy to supply those rims. I sure would give them a try at handling tracks such as Lime Rock Park.

I would like to know of some supplier. All I have found is spinwerks. They have only 4 rims in 6" and are not going to carry any more. $231/each = ouch!

I guess my point is that other than a temporary dual classification, I'm not sure there's an easy answer that will make everyone happy.[/quote]
Is making everyone happy a requirement? or is what is best overall, Maybe 7 in ITB is not the best answer, If there were a good supply of 6" under 15# in every bolt pattern in ITB, there would be no issue at all.

I still think fitment is the best over all answer.

JoshS

06-01-2009, 01:18 AM

$231/each = ouch!

I agree that the price sounds expensive for an off-the-shelf 14x6 wheel, but ... still, the price of a couple of sets of those (especially when you consider that you can sell your 7" wheels for SOMETHING) is MUCH MUCH MUCH less than it would have cost you to try to be competitive in ITA. If you are overweight for B, you must have been really really overweight for A!

quadzjr

06-01-2009, 09:19 AM

I guess my point is that other than a temporary dual classification, I'm not sure there's an easy answer that will make everyone happy.

What about the idea of you can run the stock wheels that came on your car or being your car came on stock or run an aftermarket wheel up to a width of 6".

That should cover everyone. another option is instead of buyring 230 per wheel.. it would be cheaper to machine weight out of your stock wheels. Even if yo uhad to buy a student version of solidworks to test it.

Andy Bettencourt

06-01-2009, 09:24 AM

What about the idea of you can run the stock wheels that came on your car or being your car came on stock or run an aftermarket wheel up to a width of 6".

That should cover everyone. another option is instead of buyring 230 per wheel.. it would be cheaper to machine weight out of your stock wheels. Even if yo uhad to buy a student version of solidworks to test it.

It doesn't cover the OP who got moved from ITA to ITB.

Greg Amy

06-01-2009, 09:57 AM

It doesn't cover the OP who got moved from ITA to ITB.
...unless the car originally came with 6" wheels, stock. In that case you're in the "let them eat cake" scenario, same as, for example, a car that's coming in new (not a move) and doesn't have as many wheel options as the current competitors do.

Look, this whole idea of "stock wheels" is a slightly misplaced in context, at least in terms of historical significance. The original intent of the width rules was to minimize expense and maximize parity by setting an outer width limit, loosely based on what was the largest-width available for the cars in that class at the time. In other words, you couldn't have parity by making people stick to stock widths because some came with 5" wheels and some came with 6" wheels, so since many cars came with 6" wheel widths you open it up to 6" wheels for everyone. "Back then" 6"-wide wheels were the shits for cars in this class! Today, not so much the case.

So, if you want to stick to the original intent of the rule, you need to do a survey of all stock wheel widths in the class and find out the largest-stock one and go with that for everyone.

An alternative is what I described prior: ignore what's stock and go with what's best in terms of availability and price to cover the field effectively. That may or may not be coincidental with the suggestion above.

Or, you can just stay pat, and the current ITB and ITC drivers are happy, while others coming in are possibly unhappy (but this doesn't sound like a significant factor among this group). - GA

quadzjr

06-01-2009, 10:54 AM

It doesn't cover the OP who got moved from ITA to ITB.

I have another cheap Idea.. buy a set of cheap 14x6 wheels and get them re-drilled.. That is significatnly cheaper than $230 per wheel. This is a cheap expense.. would the OP rather run his car on 7" wheels, that he honestly did not have a chance of a podium finish with a decent field? I know that I personally was excited of the fact that my car was moved to a class where it can be comeptitive.. (ITB MR2) I purchased it as old A car. I told the seller to keep his 15x7" wheels it came with to lower the price of the car to help pay for the 14x6" wheels I had to purchase to make it legal.

I can see where the OP is coming from.. his car was re-classed and now he has to buy new wheels to run legally. I was in the same boat with the car I bought.. so I had to get rid of the wheels and buy a set of 6" wheels. That would kinda erk me if all along a few months ago I could of just kept what what the car came with.

rlward

06-02-2009, 02:10 AM

It appears the original intent has lost its way, or some now see an advantage in no change.

If the original intent was to minimize expense then the suggestion of staying with what is readily commercially available is in line with the original intent.
The largest size readily available might prove to be wider than 7" now.

Either use a fitment rule and be done with this thing forever or come up with another stop gap rule and let it resurface every year or so.

spnkzss

06-02-2009, 08:27 AM

2. Your car will be allowed to run 7" wheels for two years, and only two years, with additional weight to be determined by the ITAC

K

That sounds logical when Phil states the average race wheel should be replaced every 2 years.

rlward

06-03-2009, 12:26 AM

What do you run, spanky?
What would you want WHEN (not if) you get put in ITB?

lateapex911

06-03-2009, 12:37 AM

What do you run, spanky?
What would you want WHEN (not if) you get put in ITB?

Why would you say that????

spnkzss

06-03-2009, 09:08 AM

What do you run, spanky?
What would you want WHEN (not if) you get put in ITB?

I run a '90 Civic Si, which is "almost" equivalent to the CRX, and have no fears of ever being moved.

But I'll play along for a minute. I would bitch and moan like the rest of the people that got moved. Hope they would allow me to run my wheels for 2 years or allow the whole class to run 7" rims (like I want now, with no dog in the fight). Then buy wheels as needed. Wheels are technically a wear item so I would eventually have to buy new wheels anyways or risk balling the car up when one broke from the constant 1-1.5g's we put on our cars.:shrug:

lateapex911

06-03-2009, 12:21 PM

I run a '90 Civic Si, which is "almost" equivalent to the CRX, and have no fears of ever being moved.

But I'll play along for a minute. I would bitch and moan like the rest of the people that got moved. Hope they would allow me to run my wheels for 2 years or allow the whole class to run 7" rims (like I want now, with no dog in the fight). Then buy wheels as needed. Wheels are technically a wear item so I would eventually have to buy new wheels anyways or risk balling the car up when one broke from the constant 1-1.5g's we put on our cars.:shrug:

Rob, your scenario just doesn't work, (although you were nice to play along)...because your car is, as you say, a CRX variant, and is quite competitive, in a class structure that has a fixed performance envelope. In other words, there will never be a Ferrari 430 in ITA, forcing out currently competitive cars.

(If that WERE to happen,it would be part of a major restructuring, and ALL the cars in ITA that are trying to beat the CRX (that's like, uh, the entire class) would move and OBVIOUSLY, there would be other global changes and concerns that would occur simultaneously. )

Rodger's claim that you WILL get moved is extremely disingenuous.

Now Rob, I suggest that there could be another situation where you'd be moved. And that would be if you were driving a car that was hopelessly outclassed...and in that case, as in the case of say Dave Gran's Prelude, etc, you'd more than likely be thrilled at your new lease on life, as has been the case in the vast majority of the previous moves.

shwah

06-03-2009, 01:01 PM

I wonder how many Golf 3 guys are mad about moving from ITA to ITB?

I doubt any current Rabbit GTI drivers were racing those cars when they were in A...

Chip42

06-03-2009, 05:50 PM

ditto the MR2 people - a wonderful car with absolutely no chance of a win in ITA. the rule is 6". works for me.

If I had 16" wheels stock, then I might find a reason to complain. but I know what comes on 16" wheels and is classed in ITB/C and there's really no good reason to build those cars anyhow ;)

Knestis

06-03-2009, 07:54 PM

I wonder how many Golf 3 guys are mad about moving from ITA to ITB?

I doubt any current Rabbit GTI drivers were racing those cars when they were in A...

So far as I can figure, only one MkIII was built as an A car, anywhere. One of my very first posts here was asking if it was likely to be competitive there: The answer was, uh, "no." That might have been a factor in its move. :)

K

Greg Amy

06-03-2009, 10:20 PM

I doubt any current Rabbit GTI drivers were racing those cars when they were in A...
My very first road race car was an ITA Rabbit GTI...but I used the stock 14x6 wheels... :shrug:

On edit: Kirk, you still have those old rule sets? I seem to recall the width rule was put in there later. Wasn't the original rule (circa 1986/7-ish) to use stock-size wheels...?

Scott Nutter

06-03-2009, 10:21 PM

Hypothetical (VERY) question: So which is the correct option?

1. Allow cars moving from ITA to ITB to run with 7" wheels at their B weight as established by the specification process, or...

2. Allow that subgroup of cars to run 7" wheels but with a weight penalty to account for the increased performance of the wider wheels, or...

3. Allow everyone to run 7" wheels with no weight penalty, or...

4. Allow everyone to run 7" wheels with more weight, or...

5. Throw up our arms and let everyone run anything that will fit under stock fenders

Did I forget any options?

K

To be honest, I got tired of reading about halfway thru page 2. I personally would lean towards the shock rule mentality and go with option 5. As long as it is the same bolt pattern and fits under the stock fenders it's legal.

I'm honestly not sure if an ITB car would benefit from say 9" rims. Of course with DOT rubber!

Let's face it the fast guys would still be fast and the guys willing to spend money would still spend money and the cheap guys could run what ever rubber they could find. Remeber in IT there is no guarantee of competiveness:)

Knestis

06-03-2009, 10:58 PM

...On edit: Kirk, you still have those old rule sets? I seem to recall the width rule was put in there later. Wasn't the original rule (circa 1986/7-ish) to use stock-size wheels...?

Completely academic but yeah, here's the IT equivalent of the draft Constitution of the United States:

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/downloads/ThisisIT.pdf

Current wheel widths for A, B, and C are all codified right there. Now, what each of us thinks that means will vary a LOT in my experience.

K

Bill Miller

06-04-2009, 06:52 PM

Hi guys, did you miss me??? :P

Gotta admit Kirk, I had a nice chuckle at the "clip and save for future reference".

I actually read the entire thread (why, I have no idea). There are some good points made on both sides. I'd love to comment on several of the things in here, but honestly, reading the 6+ pages wore me out. A couple of things that I did notice:

The majority of people arguing against any kind of larger wheel allowance are doing it from their own position (which is natural). Specifically to Stephen B, I don't remember you taking this position when the 'let everyone run up to 15" wheels' proposal was going around. If I'm wrong about that, I'll apologize now.

Telling the guys that got moved from ITA to ITB that they should be happy that they can now be competitive and shouldn't complain about having to buy new wheels is still just as disingenuous today, as it was when this thing went through. If you were happy about the move, and didn't mind buying new wheels, more power to you. But it shouldn't have been jammed down everyone's throat.

People are against spec-line allowances and 'special rules' for specific cars, yet they still happen (I don't believe there is any sunset on the E36 in ITS). Either things are going to be dealt w/ on a consistent basis, or they're not.

People hate the idea of adustments being made based on on-track performance, but it's expressley stated that this is allowed for newly classified cars w/ in years 2-4 of their initial classification.

Not allowing a car to run on the size wheels that it came with is just plain silly. How many New Beetles have been built? As an aside to this, I'll give the ITAC a heads-up that they should be expecting a letter regarding this.

While I agree that Darin did a lot of the legwork in developing the classification process, the push to have one came from a lot of the people on this board (myself included).

And finally, reading this thread was like stepping into a time warp. Could have sworn I read pretty much the same thing ~3 or so years ago. And I see that some people still haven't changed.

Greg Amy

06-04-2009, 07:49 PM

Hi, Bill!! Yes, we've missed you.

chuck baader

06-05-2009, 09:46 PM

Knestis

06-05-2009, 10:10 PM

Ok, folks...here is a good one for you. Wheels for an 84 Celica GTS. Tire rack has no, none, not one in 14 or 15" size. Stock wheel size is 14 X 7 so those can't be run. So, Diamond, Keizer, Weld..none of them have a 14 or 15 X 6 available. Other suggestions??? Chuck

It's going to sound a little harsh, Chuck but I really don't think that anyone REALLY wants what will happen if we start writing categorical rules to accommodate the needs and issues of individual cars.

I had a book when I was a little kid called, "What would happen if everybody did?" The point of the story was that we can each do something a little bit wrong but if EVERYONE did it, there would be trouble. The same applies here: What if EVERYONE got an allowance around their biggest issue? Or worse, what if we changed the rules for everyone, to help every individual driver deal with some "major issue" with his/her car? It would be a mess.

...reading the 6+ pages wore me out.

Damn, Bill - you need to get back in shape, man!

:)

K

chuck baader

06-05-2009, 10:29 PM

So what you are saying is that I can't run a car that is classified because of the nonavailability of wheels? I can understand the non competitive guarantee, however, I can't understand the nonavailability of wheels. The request for suggestions was aimed at what manufacturers can possibly provide wheels. Chuck

JoshS

06-05-2009, 10:43 PM

Didn't take much searching for me to find used 14x5.5" wheels from the regular Celica GT of the same generation. Sure, not 6" but they fit and would be legal.

rlward

06-06-2009, 12:22 AM

The whole point of this discussion was to solve a problem that does in fact exist, and for more than just one car. There are legal cars that are having difficulties getting new wheels to fit the current rules. The rule must change to address issues that were not contemplated by the rulemakers at the time the rule were written. Some rules have changes to keep up with technology. This isu is no different. The rulemakers can keep thier head in the sand or they can find a sensible solution that will take an evolving market into account.
SO.....
To those who suggest junk yard wheels as a viable solution, cut the crap! There is no guarentee they are any good. And I would not want to be around th car when they failed. How about you?

To those who say have custom wheels made at whatever the cost, cut the crap! Your suggestion will only reduce the number of racers in IT. Maybe your buget is unlimited, IT was founded on low cost racing.

To those who say tough luck, build another car, cut the crap! what you are really saying is go race with another club. Not good for SCCA or IT.

ekim952522000

06-06-2009, 01:00 AM

There may be a time when it is too hard to find 6" wide wheels and it may be hard for some right now, but I honestly don't think that as a category ITB is even close to this being a big enough problem. It be easier for some cars to find 8lb 6" wide wheels but there are cheap legal options for all of the cars I would say.

gran racing

06-06-2009, 06:55 AM

I used 5.5" rims from '87 just fine when in ITA. :rolleyes:

Roger, you so contradict yourself in this thread. You say "do what's best for the class" yet are one of a very few that are complaining about having to source new rims.

Would you rather the Shelby continue to be in ITA?

Knestis

06-06-2009, 07:02 AM

So what you are saying is that I can't run a car that is classified because of the nonavailability of wheels? ... Chuck

What I'm saying is that some cars are always going to be harder - read, "more expensive" - to race in IT than others. With wheels, we're talking about some degree of that. and the rules can't do a thing to change that reality.

I'm sure Dick would love it if someone could find him a source for RX3 rear brake parts. Or if Tom S. (et al.) discovered that I have been hording new rotor housings in my basement for 20 years.

Now, Rodger's case IS different because the car was moved to B. Some ideas to soften the blow have been discussed but it didn't sound like they were very well received.

K

rlward

06-06-2009, 10:39 AM

DAve,
You evidently did not read the whole thread.
No contradiction; to make a change that addresses my problem, keeping in mind the same problem with other cars that run now and future changes in the availability of 15x6 I agreed with a suggested change of the rule based on fitment. That type of change for all classes in IT is a possible solution that is not car specific.

I agree that there are very few cars affected now, but as the call for certain size wheels drop off, the makers of the wheels changeto keep pace with sizes that are in demand. They only have so much capacity so sizes are dropped. My size and bolt pattern is one of those.

K, my issue with your suggestions is that it is temporary. As a temporary solution, any would seem to work, but what happens in 2 years? I do want to continue to race, and in the car I have now. I don't believe I'll be able to find 6" wheels then; so I am in the same spot as now. No solid solution. Now maybe there will be more cars affected in 2 years and the chances of getting a real solution might be better. SO if 2 years is the best for IT now then let's get it done and I'l bring it up again. I just don't think temporary solutions are best.

lateapex911

06-06-2009, 11:00 AM

Rodger, you've been 'offered' several valid solutions. Dual classing for a couple years, for one, and others have found wheel options for you. Yet you reject them, and keep blowing the "It's best for the class" horn.

I'm with them. Your problem is shared by some, but you are still in a vast minority. And you have options. You reject the used wheel solution as unsafe. Uh, whatever..have you ever heard or seen a wheel fail in IT? I haven't, and I've been around for a few years. Heck, inspect them, have them magnafluxed if you're that worried. I assume you're already doing that with the hubs and spindles and other components on your car...otherwise it's a bit hypocritical....if you're that concerned that you'll have an unsafe wheel because of it's age, well, you're cars getting on too, eh?

Too much money? Well, that's the way the dice roll sometimes. You just can't reasonably expect to race on nickles and dimes....AND be competitive. Choose one.

And I take exception that any answer that doesn't please you is telling you to race elsewhere. Seriously, you have an issue, and you want the entire category's rule changed to make your life easier and cheaper? And EVERYone to have to buy all new wheels? C'mon...you gotta be kidding.

jjjanos

06-06-2009, 05:05 PM

What I'm saying is that some cars are always going to be harder - read, "more expensive" - to race in IT than others. With wheels, we're talking about some degree of that. and the rules can't do a thing to change that reality.

Ahhh, but with wheels, the rules can do exactly that w/o resorting to the evil spec-line exception! How? Simply eliminate the constraint and use...

"Tire tread (that portion of the tire that contacts the ground under static conditions) shall not protrude beyond the fender opening when viewed from the top perpendicular to the ground."

Shoot, you don't even need to add a thing to the GCR. You could make it shorter.

Gary L

06-06-2009, 06:21 PM

Ahhh, but with wheels, the rules can do exactly that w/o resorting to the evil spec-line exception! How? Simply eliminate the constraint and use...

"Tire tread (that portion of the tire that contacts the ground under static conditions) shall not protrude beyond the fender opening when viewed from the top perpendicular to the ground."

Shoot, you don't even need to add a thing to the GCR. You could make it shorter.
I'm afraid of this approach. In fact, I'm very afraid of this approach. Where do we find the dimensional drawings we'd need in order to police this? I'm imagining some very clever bodywork goings-on....

Leave the damned rule alone.

Greg Amy

06-06-2009, 06:40 PM

Where do we find the dimensional drawings we'd need in order to police this?
Uuuuuh, we'd enforce it the same way we do now? (What, you didn't know this rule was already in there...? :shrug: ) - GA

Gary L

06-06-2009, 06:57 PM

Greg- It's not about whether or not a rule exists, it's about the incentive to stretch (pun intended) a particular rule. With this proposal... to allow any wheel and tire under the fender that will fit... there is infinitely more incentive.

Knestis

06-06-2009, 10:11 PM

Greg Amy

06-06-2009, 11:27 PM

With this proposal... to allow any wheel and tire under the fender that will fit... there is infinitely more incentive.
There is incentive now -- with the lack of restriction on track, lack of restriction on wheel offset, and the allowance of wheel spacers.

You guys aren't taking advantage of this now (I do)??? Well, then you ain't gonna take advantage of it with an "open" wheel rule... :shrug: - GA

lateapex911

06-06-2009, 11:32 PM

Ahhh, but with wheels, the rules can do exactly that w/o resorting to the evil spec-line exception! How? Simply eliminate the constraint and use...

"Tire tread (that portion of the tire that contacts the ground under static conditions) shall not protrude beyond the fender opening when viewed from the top perpendicular to the ground."

Shoot, you don't even need to add a thing to the GCR. You could make it shorter.

Doesn't the fact that some cars can get a 9" rim in there while others are stuck with 6" bother anyone? That is a rather random post classification comp adjustment if you ask me...
And, do we really think it's a good idea for everyone to need to examine, test and possibly rid themselves of their current wheel inventory? For what? A couple guys don't like their choices?

nip_mr2

06-07-2009, 10:37 AM

Stupid question but:

How much of a performance difference is there between 6" to 7" wheels with the same size tires? Example 14x6 with 205/55 or 14x7 with 205/55. Has there been a test to see if there is an advantage and if so will it make a noticeable difference with lets say a mid-pack car that run constantly in 10th to 11th place. How many position will that person gain?

My car just got move to ITB this year, and like alot of other driver's out there I bitched about having to buy new wheels and the weight I had to add. But the rules are what they are. I read earlier in this thread about someone saying about changing the rules for selfish reasons, because they have to buy new wheels is not a reason. If the reason is it might make them more competitive and have closer racing then that might make a difference. But will that be fair for the other driver's that is running the 6" wheel. How do we balance the playing field for all of us. We all try to find the grey areas in the rules in this sport. Most, if not all of us are pretty gentlemenly about the rules, policing each other, and we all want to win. But if it's going to make for closer racing and there is not a distinct advantage for that one or two cars, why not allow that type of car to run that size wheel. Not all of us want to drive the same car.

Just to clarify I not bitching about what I had to do to my car to make it legal for this season. I'm just questioning how much gain/difference the wheel size will have on the racing

rlward

06-07-2009, 11:28 AM

Knestis

06-07-2009, 12:41 PM

Please recognize that I'm not being argumentative, Rodger. I just feel an obligation to clarify for the good of the order...

>> I have accepted that if a 2 year exception is the only thing available, I'll go with that and bring this up again in 2 years.

As one who put that kind of idea into the discussion, I need to clarify what was in my head: The concept of a explicit provision in the rules to allow the ITAC to temporarily spec a make/model moved from A to B outside of our normal guidelines, to lessen the blow of the transition (e.g., 7" wheels at a higher spec weight during that time). The rules would spell out precisely how it would work.

That's a subtly - but importantly - different thing than simply granting a 2-year exception to allow this model to use 7" wheels, that might be extended later. In fact, on reflection the idea that folks would push to do such a thing is a strong argument against considering it, to my way of thinking. That's one fundamental mechanism by which rules creep works.

This kind of thing would be a huge allowance given where we are with the effort to standardize the category, and I do not bring it up lightly. Like tax breaks, a gimme of that type can be politically difficult to stick with when the sunset date approaches. I won't even pretend that it has much of a chance but I will tell you that if I were (personally) to support it, you could count on me to stick to the end date like a freaking barnacle.

K

Greg Amy

06-07-2009, 05:32 PM

...allow the ITAC to temporarily spec a make/model moved from A to B outside of our normal guidelines, to lessen the blow of the transition (e.g., 7" wheels at a higher spec weight during that time)...This kind of thing would be a huge allowance given where we are with the effort to standardize the category, and I do not bring it up lightly.
How about this idea: if you think there's a significant difference in performance between 6" and 7" wheels, and you think the ITAC can reasonably come up with a solution vis-a-vis a proper amount of weight to accommodate that performance advantage, how about encoding it for both ITB and ITC? In other words, instead of making that available just to moved cars, make it available to everyone, and let's see how the chips fall a fw years down the road? You could even do that with a sunset/mandatory re-review clause...let the competitors decide and illustrate if the idea is sound...

Make it a high number, such that there would "appear" to be no advantage, and let the chips fall as they may.

Just thinking out loud... - GA

tom91ita

06-07-2009, 06:03 PM

Greg,

a quick clarifying question...

are you "proposing" something like car XX could run 6" wheels at 2000 #'s or run 7" wheels at 2200 #'s in the same class (e.g., ITB)?

above numbers are purely for illustrative purposes.

tom

Knestis

06-07-2009, 06:42 PM

How about this idea... GA

That would be enough change, that (as Chris describe) we'd probably be better off just "ripping off the Band-aid" and going whole-hog with a new approach.

For the "ease-the-pain" policy, the sound approach would be, as you describe, to make the weight penalty substantial enough that it errs on the side of not a benefit.

All of this is purely academic at this point, of course.

K

EDIT - I should be explicit that the above is predicated on my belief that it would be very hard to get a handle on managing the weight difference necessary to implement something like that.

lateapex911

06-07-2009, 06:49 PM

Jake, a rule change does not dictate everyone has to go out and buy new wheels, but a class change does. I think I have you to thank for that.

I have accepted that if a 2 year exception is the only thing available, I'll go with that and bring this up again in 2 years.

1- you have the people who wrote in and begged the car get reviewed and moved. The math showed it couldn't compete at the ITA performance target, and that the weight at which it could would be impossibly low, IIRC. So thank the letter writers, not me.

2- Let me clarify the "exception" you bring up. I for one would support a 2 year dual classing. But that's it. No line item exceptions for different equipment, or differing weighs. Simply, keep running it in ITA, or move to B. your choice.

I have not touted a class change but rather a global change for all IT classes. Some of the latest suggestions lately have made some sense as it allows for changes in availability.

I am comptitive in B, thank you. but I want to be MORE competitive. I need to reduce wheel weight, change track, and I need to replace old wheels, and new 7" wheels (thank you again).

You sound to me like you don't want any changes that will possibly upset your apple cart.
If by "your apple cart" you mean a category that has time and time again has said, "move slowly, be stable" as a major philosophy, then sure....I'm careful about changes that do more harm than good. You say that a rule change doesn't force everyone to go out and purchase wheels, and you're right, it doesn't. But, the competitive reality is that you have just started a spending war with such a change. Those with the $ will raise the bar if they can, and those who had worked their way into a competitive position ...but aren't as well flushed are now looking at mandatory expense just to regain their former competitive level.

I take exception to your statement about any answer that doesnt please ME....you make this sound as if I am asking for a change for my car only. I am not. I asked the question if it was time to review the rule on sizes because of change in the market. 5 years ago there were plenty of 15X6 wheels being made. How many manufacturers can you find now, and I don't mean those off brand wheels made in China, how many reliable makers in the US?
That sounds great, but the entire subject came up because you aren't happy with the choices that you have found for your car. Plenty of options have been listed here, and you've shot all them down as: "Too much money, too dangerous, too heavy, not competitive enough", etc. It's not that you don't have options, it's that you don't like them. If you owned an ITS car with plentiful wheel choices, you could be making these claims more effectively, but your stake in the matter shows the true origin of the issue.

If a change was to go to 7" in ITB only: How many ITB drivers have you personally talked to about this issue? Do they feel that they will HAVE to go out and buy new wheel soley because of a size change? Are they receptive to that change?The guys I've talked to are rolling their eye. That's informal polling...I'll keep asking.

If the rule was changed as suggested above based on fitment for all of IT, have you personally asked any owners if they would feel a need to immediatly go out and buy all new wheel inventory?
I don't need to ask. Nobody will change anything if their competitive goals are being met. But, if their competition ups the game, well, it's a slippery slope. In essence, the cost of success is directly related to the popularity of the game. In other words, you can win on stock rubber in some regions, and there's no reason to do more. But, where it i more popular, it gets competitive, and you need to be on the perfect cycled tire, the perfect wheels, the perfect springs, damper settings, etc etc, etc.

If the rule never changes and 15X6, or any wheel size now in the books become a rare as hens teeth, is that ok with you as, "that's the role of the dice sometimes"?
It's not my favorite answer, but I'm mindful of changing rules to satisfy small percentages of the population. The old English Prod guys kept beating at the rules makers: "We can't get cranks that hold up anymore". Billet cranks were allowed. Line items came to be. Every old timer had a request for something to keep his car in the game, and often they were granted, but at the cost to the entire category. We are doomed to follow history if we don't learn from the mistakes.

This is not an easy issue to address and maybe there is no solution other than a short term one. Maybe we should look at this 2 ways, on one side a possible change to 7" in ITB only, with input from current ITB owners only, and then another one for a global change for all of IT with input from all.

What do you think about that?

My only palatable suggestion is dual classing for a period to ease the transition.

Finally, I run an old RX-7. Think it's easy getting lightweight 13 x 7 wheels at a cheap price? It's not. But you say" Just go to 15" versions". Sure, except that kills the gearing and the suspension geometry. But, here's my take: So what? It is what it is...it's an old car..I've gotten lots of miles and fun with it. Sheesh, it's run 2 logbooks worth of races. I'll deal with it. And now engine parts are in short/not available supply, and there is no replating allowed. So that's the end of the road on that. I'm not going to ask that the car be given an exception or that the rules be rewritten to allow me to keep racing the car...it's one car. I wouldn't vote for that if it came across the desk from some guy in a Wombat GT with the H4 engine, so I'm sure not going to for my own.

rlward

06-08-2009, 12:24 AM

you are like a politician, you evade the specific answers to the question; I repeat:
I have suggesed a global change for IT.
How many manufacturers can you find that offer 15 x 6 wheels that are made in the US?
The guys that are rolling their eyes, Is that SCCA in all areas? how Many?
If you don't need to ask, does that mean you are omnipotent? and know whats best for all?
The ole english prod guys are still racing; how about that!!!!
Your palate does not necessarily reflect the tastes of the entire racing community.
As far as your RX7, why not? does it give you a competitive advantage to replate? I don't think so. Does it keep a competitor in IT? Yes. So what is wrong with that? It keeps another competitor on the game.

frnkhous

06-08-2009, 01:11 AM

http://www.diamondracingwheels.com/

might help you find and acceptable wheel both on price and size and build location.

Yeah I get what your upset about, and i'd be upset if I dropped 1500 dollars on 6.8lbs 13x6 inch wheels for my itc/itb car and the rule became 7 inches.(currently itc but can be switched) Now I could also do some junkyard shopping and get bmw 320i wheels for 100 bux a set or less. I'm not positive but I think they are 12 lbs or less. I'm not sure whether I think a move to 7" wheels really changes anything. As jake pointed out 13x7 wheels are expensive, and 14x7 aren't much better, although a few more options exist. I have a 1990 honda not exactly a rare car yet I could easily drop 1500 dollars on wheels(with the current rule). Basically I kinda think your stuck... maybe we should up the size to 7" inches. I have a dog in the fight and don't really know what to think. As a side note personally all the fwd cars would likely only need to upgrade the fronts to 7"inches wide. but i'm sure many would disagree. I actually have 14x5.5 inch wheels I occasionally run and the sky doesn't fall.

I'll buy and be running 15x7 rpf1's if the rule changed cause i've already done the testing, even if the cars were far different... but honestly from a cost standpoint I can run 14x6 wheels for 120 dollars that weigh the same. Which ones cheaper? 6 inches still makes a lot of sense. yet I could spend 1500 dollars for 4 wheels on the same car pretty easy.

RexRacer19

06-08-2009, 07:57 AM

The guys that are rolling their eyes, Is that SCCA in all areas? how Many?

However many guys he has rolling their eyes, add one more from the Southeast.

gran racing

06-08-2009, 08:39 AM

I'm just questioning how much gain/difference the wheel size will have on the racing

Doug, While there’s an advantage when looking at just one lap time, where I see the biggest advantage is later in the race especially for cars that have a lot of weight in the front. I also believe some cars would benefit from this more than others. Your MR2 – using R compounds it probably won’t matter too much. When Jake F. began using A compounds in his MR2, I know moving to 6” rims would have hurt that tire approach and may have forced a switch back to R compounds.

Do they feel that they will HAVE to go out and buy new wheel solely because of a size change?

I would not go out and buy new rims because I need to focus on getting seat time. See Greg! J I do know that others would buy them and those who didn’t, just lost a bit in performance competitiveness. When I go back down to the ARRC (if this rule were to happen), I’d absolutely borrow some ITA driver’s 7” wide rims for the event. Basically what Jake said about the spending war.

As a side note personally all the fwd cars would likely only need to upgrade the fronts to 7"inches wide. but i'm sure many would disagree.

Not in terms of on track performance, but in terms of tire management. For fwd cars, once the fronts reach 7 / 8 cycles, they just go on the rear. Having a mix of rims complicates this or forces unmounting, mounting ($).

Roger, where do you typically race? Without getting into a debate with them, take a few minutes to ask the ITB drivers at next event how they'd feel about allowing 7" rims.

jjjanos

06-08-2009, 09:36 AM

That quite literally doesn't make any sense. Beyond the self-evident fact that if a rule gets deleted, the ITCS gets shorter

Which part doesn't make sense?
1. That the arbitrary constraint in the rules makes it more expensive to buy wheels?
2. That simply deleting the language establishing the constraint and relying upon the language already in the ITCS to limit legal wheel size is an example of a rules change making thigns cheaper?

Doesn't the fact that some cars can get a 9" rim in there while others are stuck with 6" bother anyone?

Doesn't the fact that some cars get double-wishbone suspensions and others are stuck with torsion bars and struts bother anyone?

That is a rather random post classification comp adjustment if you ask me...

I think that requires a rather expansive - even more than what I use - definition of comp adjustment, particularly since the changes are being applied uniform without an idea (at least for me) as to which cars get the change or their current competitiveness.

Greg Amy

06-08-2009, 10:26 AM

Doesn't the fact that some cars can get a 9" rim in there while others are stuck with 6" bother anyone?
The post above reminded me I wanted to reply to this...

Jake, this shouldn't bother anyone any more than the fact that some cars can fit wider tires and larger spacers than others NOW. The Suzuki, for example, can't use the 225 mm section width tires that all other cars seem to be able to; no way, no how (we are even close to rubbing the fenders with Hankook 205s; I have doubts that a Hoosier 205 will fit.) It also can't use any wheel offset much different than stock due to being within 2 mm on the struts on the inside. Of course, increasing track via spacers ain't gonna happen, either. And - side issue to what we're discussing here - finding any wheels below 12-ish pounds in 4x4.25 pattern at low prices is tough.

Point is, we set outer boundaries and allow competitors to proper within that boundary. The issue at hand with this topic is "what would be the effect of increasing that boundary 1" on width?"; that, I suggest would be insignificant in terms of performance, as all cars should be pushing that outer track envelope anyway; at best they'd have to reduce track to use the wider wheels (assuming section width is slightly increased and the tire sits flatter with 225s on 7" versus 225s on 6".)

And, moving that boundary to "what would fit within the fenders" does nothing to increase the outer location of the tires; we already have that with the current fender limits. Allowing wheels/tires that would "fit" (instead of the current 6" limit) would only allow increase in section width inwards, and that would be limited by suspension design and by performance factors (e.g., no one would theoretically have an increased performance advantage by using 325 section width tires, as no car in ITB/C has the weight and/or torque to get those size tires up to temperature).

I'm not necessarily condoning changes in the rules, I just get annoyed by such extreme-view knee-jerk reaction to those ideas...

BTW, I've been doing an informal poll on this topic, and ITAC aside it appears that all current ITB competitors are happy with the current rule, and all non-ITB competitors and/or those going into ITB want the rule changed. Proving, yet again, that arguments about these kind of things are pointless, as the majority are simply looking out for themselves... :shrug:

lateapex911

06-08-2009, 11:38 AM

The post above reminded me I wanted to reply to this...

Jake, this shouldn't bother anyone any more than the fact that some cars can fit wider tires and larger spacers than others NOW. ...................

BTW, I've been doing an informal poll on this topic, and ITAC aside it appears that all current ITB competitors are happy with the current rule, and all non-ITB competitors and/or those going into ITB want the rule changed. Proving, yet again, that arguments about these kind of things are pointless, as the majority are simply looking out for themselves... :shrug:

Stop right there, friend! I absolutely agree that some cars can fit wider tires than otheres now. Yup...and that's one thing we all consider when choosing our ride. We look at the car in question, and aask ourselves or anyone that can answer, "Can I get the same tire under there that my competition is using??" Maybe we can't, and maybe the car is super ight, and we can live with the result, but if the cars a barge, and there's no room under the fender, we move on, right? (Assuming we want to be competitive) As long as the car in question can match the max allowable, we're fine, because they the cars that could use larger rims are bound by the rules .....

Now, if other cars have room for 9" rims, and our choice was just able to match the largest size at the time of the 6" rule, but that rule gets dropped, we've just now changed the game..post classification, and some guys get a potential big benefit, others are outside looking in.

While the rule proposed is class, or category wide, it's effect isn't equally distributed.

It's the same way I'd react if somebody suggested we do away with unique engine adders, and the rotaries got the same as everyone. That's fine if we're just starting the class, and everyone has free choice, but post classification, a change like that will benefit some, not others, and they are stuck.

If the category or class was set up that way, and cars classed accordingly going in, fine. But not now.

lateapex911

06-08-2009, 11:48 AM

Which part doesn't make sense?

Doesn't the fact that some cars get double-wishbone suspensions and others are stuck with torsion bars and struts bother anyone?

I think that requires a rather expansive - even more than what I use - definition of comp adjustment, particularly since the changes are being applied uniform without an idea (at least for me) as to which cars get the change or their current competitiveness.

See above comments in the post with Greg's quote for the general response.

As to the double wishbone, etc, some factors are accounted for in the classification process. Others like torsion bars, are not considered performance items, and get nothing. Tbars are springs, and while they are a pain to deal with, they can function fine. They fall under the "choose your car carefully, warts and all", response.

Semantics. In my eye, it's a change to the class that will change the competitive balance, which is opposite of the goal of the entire racing concept, which is to class cars in an equal manner. Such a change has a random result, and I can't see that as good.

Greg Amy

06-08-2009, 11:50 AM

If the category or class was set up that way, and cars classed accordingly going in, fine. But not now.
How come? If "warts and all" is an acceptable defense, why is it only acceptable as a defense for the status quo? Are you basically saying that as an ITAC committee member you are only concerned about "warting" new cars coming in, that when considering a rule change it's more important to maintain the status quo (versus what's best for the class as a whole)?

'Cause "warts" can go both ways.

It's an honest question, not a trap. Personally, I would "expect" rulesmakers to carry a blind eye and balance it all out from a 30,000-foot view, rather than having a pre-disposed hair-trigger towards making sure to not upset the apple cart... - GA

ekim952522000

06-08-2009, 11:51 AM

....

If the category or class was set up that way, and cars classed accordingly going in, fine. But not now.

Exactly. If ITB allowed 9" wheels from the beginning no big deal, a change now after people have picked cars based on the rules is not good IMO.

lateapex911

06-08-2009, 12:05 PM

you are like a politician, you evade the specific answers to the question; I repeat:
I have suggesed a global change for IT.
How many manufacturers can you find that offer 15 x 6 wheels that are made in the US?

Sorry, I'm not doing hours of research to answer an irrelevant question.
Now you're adding "made in the USA " as a new qualification? Why not limit it to purple rims too? In this thread alone there have been adequate solutions posted. Simply put, you and you alone are demanding too narrow of an answer. I'm sorry if you can't find made in the us 8 pound rims that are brand new and sell for $125 each. But I'm not going to support a foundational change to an entire category to make one or two guys lives easier, while at the same time making an entire class test and resolve what they should do. But hey, I'm only one guy on the ITAC, I can be easily outvoted...that's politics!

The guys that are rolling their eyes, Is that SCCA in all areas? how Many?
If you don't need to ask, does that mean you are omnipotent? and know whats best for all?Obviously, I haven't taken a poll. Reread the post. As for the second half...again, reread the post...sorry, but you're bordering on troll status..

The ole english prod guys are still racing; how about that!!!!
Your palate does not necessarily reflect the tastes of the entire racing community. And the old English guys (and the "what's best for me" slippery slope rules changers) also decimated Prod, and the car counts took a serious dive, while other classes flourished. It is inarguable that Prod was in a bad way. The needs of the few were attended to while the needs of the many were ignored. Prod is just now staging a recovery, and it's by rolling back to a different prep level. I give them a TON of credit. Stuffing the Genie back in the bottle aint easy. So I really could care less if they are still racing, ...because keeping them had huge costs.

As far as your RX7, why not? does it give you a competitive advantage to replate? I don't think so. Does it keep a competitor in IT? Yes. So what is wrong with that? It keeps another competitor on the game.Here's the deal on that. The rules state no platings, etc. That means no platings, period. So, to change that requires line item exceptions. Typically the ITAC is against line item exceptions. In this case, I can see it going either way, as the rotary has it's own set of rules in the book. A more restrictive set, I might add. However, if I were to request it, it's an obvious conflict of interest. I have no first hand knowledge, but I understand the coatings increase power in the amount of dyno noise, if at all. If the question comes up, and I were forced to vote, I'd vote with the committee,but recusing myself is the actual action I'd take.

Now, I've stated and restated my position and I've bore everyone here with my responses, no doubt, so I'm going to get some work done.

jjjanos

06-08-2009, 12:38 PM

Semantics. In my eye, it's a change to the class that will change the competitive balance, which is opposite of the goal of the entire racing concept, which is to class cars in an equal manner.

Except the cars aren't classed in an equal manner.

The 2800 lb Swedish Schooner is penalized relative to the 1735 riceburner and the process does nothing to adjust for this bias.

Given the suggestion of revising the FWD adder because of a perceived bias against higher-HP FWD-cars, I would think a recognized bias against heavy cars would be addressed first.

Knestis

06-08-2009, 08:17 PM

...all non-ITB competitors and/or those going into ITB want the rule changed. Proving, yet again, that arguments about these kind of things are pointless, as the majority are simply looking out for themselves... :shrug:

Help me understand this, Greg: Non-ITB competitors want the rule changed to allow 7" wheels in B, or to go to the "anything under the fenders" kind of solution for everyone...?

K

Knestis

06-08-2009, 08:29 PM

Which part doesn't make sense?
1. That the arbitrary constraint in the rules makes it more expensive to buy wheels?
2. That simply deleting the language establishing the constraint and relying upon the language already in the ITCS to limit legal wheel size is an example of a rules change making thigns cheaper? ...

1. All constraints in the rules are arbitrary if you want to view them as such, or if one completely ignores context. The ITAC arguably doesn't have the luxury of reframing what is arbitrary and what isn't. More simply, you assertion moves from a huge overstatement: That restricting wheel size "makes it more expensive to buy wheels." That's patently not true unless you argue that the exception defines the rule.

2. Again, your contention that opening up wheel size to anything that keeps the tire inside the fender will "make things cheaper" for IT competitors across the entire membership just isn't justified by any evidence - unless I've missed something. Controlling for all other variables, it's generally the case that larger wheels of any given manufacturer and style cost more than smaller ones.

Now, if you are talking about saving money for a few, individual racers in specific unusual situations - like I completely appreciate Rodger and his Mopar bros are in - you are right. But it would be HORRIBLE policy to make categorical rules to satisfy the neeeds, even urgent needs, of a few people.

I'm a little amazed that this is seemingly so hard to understand.

K

frnkhous

06-08-2009, 09:30 PM

The more I read into this I see the only real reason to change this rule is new cars itc beetle maybe and a few itb cars that may come with wider than 6" wheels and bigger than 15". Finding a 16 or 17 x 6 wheel may be harder. Almost everything else can be found either by junkyard shopping or careful looking for odd sources of wheels. They can be extremely expensive no matter what you make the rule. If you carry the thinking to allowing oem wheels as ok then you don't have to worry about that problem. you could allow anyone to run 15" wheels in itb/c and that may eliminate the search for narrow larger diameter wheels. The fact that if you look in junkyards/online most vehicles can get a less than 15lbs wheel for less than 200 dollars i'm not sure what we have is broken. People will always spend more for an advantage. I sure don't wanna buy 15x8 inch volks to fit 275/35 15 inch hoosier a6's on an itc car. No I don't ever think that would really be necessary but that rules out opening it up. That and I'm guessing if Mr. Amy wants to send me his car and a big enough check you can fit a 15x7 with a 225 tire(2" springs and very very rolled fender, maybe more negative camber with the strut/offset with lca bushing to adjust back). Just upped the cost more. I don't think open or bigger rules fits the IT ruleset until most new cars competing are "downgrading"
I'd like to know if the newer cars 2000+ (that will be itb/c cars) are going to have problems getting 15x6 inch wheels to fit over brakes, and how many came with larger wheels than that in either width or diameter than that from the factory. The only reason I see to change this is for the next grouping of cars that will be classed in itb/c

Brian

Greg Amy

06-08-2009, 09:35 PM

Help me understand this, Greg: Non-ITB competitors want the rule changed to allow 7" wheels in B, or to go to the "anything under the fenders" kind of solution for everyone...?
To be (less) specific, ITB folks seem to not want any change, non-ITB folks are open to the idea. :shrug: Could just be something as simple as non-ITB folks ain't got no skin in the game (though that seems like a lot better position to make an objective decision...) and vice-versa. - GA

frnkhous

06-08-2009, 09:51 PM

To be (less) specific, ITB folks seem to not want any change, non-ITB folks are open to the idea. :shrug: Could just be something as simple as non-ITB folks ain't got no skin in the game (though that seems like a lot better position to make an objective decision...) and vice-versa. - GA

I have an ITC car and am open to the idea, however the more I think about it, I don't see how it helps anything other than classing future cars. People that can't find 6" wide wheels don't really seem to be looking that hard.(for the most part) Obviously exceptions will exist and cars moved from ita to itb are never going to like this the 6 inch rule. Other than being uniform for wheel rules, what does a 7" rule change do for itb? I can't see it doing anything except maybe making the cars faster, upping cost for current competitors, and putting some cars that aren't currently at a disadvantage at one. More wear and tear on hubs, brakes, bearings etc. from more wheel/tire. How is this helping anyone? Honestly for my car it just means I won't have the 13" wheel option because I'd rather run 15's for weight/cost, so I don't care that much personally. I even have a set of13-15lbs 15x7 inch wheels I could run up front if the rule took effect, so the money isn't the issue. I'm just not sure It makes sense. Can anyone tell me why we should have 7 inch wheels besides I already got some pimp 7inch wheels for my itb car that used to be an ita car?

Brian

jjjanos

06-08-2009, 11:13 PM

1. All constraints in the rules are arbitrary if you want to view them as such, or if one completely ignores context.

Well, no. Arbitrary - Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.

I believe that you have said that the rule was in place because those were the general maximum size when the category was formed - which fails on necessity, reason and principle. The rule waass overly complex for limiting to stock width - wheels simply could have been limited to the stock rim width. The rule grants an allowance to lighter cars without a corresponding adjustment in the weight setting process. It fails to consider the case of newer cars that came with larger wheels stock and does so without a corresponding adjustment in the weight setting process.

Now, if you are talking about saving money for a few, individual racers in specific unusual situations - like I completely appreciate Rodger and his Mopar bros are in - you are right. But it would be HORRIBLE policy to make categorical rules to satisfy the neeeds, even urgent needs, of a few people.

I'm in favor of giving the orphans a spec line adjustment. I'm in favor of classifying new cars with their stock sizes as their max and adjusting the process weight to account for any perceived competion advantage. You, however, have taken precision strikes via a spec line adjustment off the table, thus leaving carpet bombing as the only weapon in the arsenal.

Some members of the ITAC seem perfectly willing to modify the FWD adjustment, thus there should be no doctrinal reasons to take a stock wheel size adjustment off the table for the orphans and newly classified cars.

I quote - "to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car." The die is cast for already classified cars, but requiring that drivers buy smaller wheels than stock for newly classified cars fails on both useful and necessary.

I'm a little amazed that this is seemingly so hard to understand.

I return the above statement to you

rlward

06-09-2009, 01:15 AM

Jake, thanks, I dont' know who else in on the itac as no oene else advertises it. Heck I don't even know how many are on it or what weight they carry.
I understand your frustration with someone that wants answers to what you consider selfish questions. I don't see it that way. As you can see by the latest fury of responses, this question has a lot of people thinking. Those that have a stock of wheels, those that are in the process of buying new wheels, and those that have been reclassified and must buy new wheels.
My issue with wheels made outside the US is the same as dog food made outside the US, no guidelines, therefore no reliability or responsibility. Sorry if you got the wrong impression that Made in China is acceptable.
You did not respond to my 2 alternate suggestions, one for ITB and another for IT accross the board. I am not trying to belabor this, I am looking for posible answers/solutions to the delima..buy now or wait for a change.

Buy the way, to the rest of you, there has been some great posts on this issue from a lot of people...keep it up, maybe there is a viable solution out there somewhere. (I still like the fitment solution.) Anyone else?

shwah

06-09-2009, 07:45 AM

I know Greg is speaking in generalizations, but it's not accurate that all ITB folks don't want a change (though it certainly seems to be most). I would not necessarily oppose changing the wheel rule, but the reason cited for said change should be a bit more genuine than what got us into this discussion.

I do think something should be done for the New Beetle and similar cars that may literally not have legal wheel options.

In other situations, I would prefer a categorical allowance over spec line allowances.

I think a 'sunset' period that allows cars moved to compete in either class would be a fair way to let those racing cars moved down to make thier own choice.

Yes if the rule allowed 7" wheels I would HAVE to go out and get a set - at least a set - and go testing to see what the data tells me.

gran racing

06-09-2009, 08:11 AM

non-ITB folks are open to the idea.

LOL Well of course they are. Ask the other classes if they'd be open to the idea of using 8" rims. Better yet, propose the idea of eliminating the maximum 7" width line. Don't think they'll care? :rolleyes:

I do think something should be done for the New Beetle and similar cars that may literally not have legal wheel options.

This is the only scenario where I can see a spec line added for them to allow a different wheel size. Of course it would also need to be included in the classification process. Other cars, no.

Andy Bettencourt

06-09-2009, 08:22 AM

I wouldn't mind if wheel sizes opened up in ITA. I am all about making my car as fast as it can be. But the right thing for the category on the whole? No way.

We haven't received any letters telling us that they want to build a NB but the only thing that is holding them back is the wheel-rule constraint. It's the weight in ITC that is the issue. A move to ITB at a 'we-don't-think-it-can-get-there' weight doesn't change the wheel issue at all.

I would be in favor of a spec line allowance of a 16' diameter (if that was the only stock option) but not for a larger width. As cars 'like this' proliferate themselves into IT, a categorical change should be considered, but simply not for less than a handful of cars.

Knestis

06-09-2009, 08:38 AM

Well, no. Arbitrary - Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.

Right on. A LOT of the current IT rules are the result of chance, whim, and impulse, by a large number of individuals, constitutions of committees, and frankly by neglect and default for a couple of decades. That alone does not make changing them worth the cost. There is value in stability and we hear from members all the time that this is an aspect of the category that they value.

Now, situations and context DO change so the ITAC has to weigh the benefit/cost of any idea, but against costs associated with change alongside others.

... I'm in favor of classifying new cars with their stock sizes as their max and adjusting the process weight to account for any perceived competion advantage.

It might surprise you to find out that I (personally) don't necessarily see a general rule that allows a make/model case to use the stock size wheel if it's larger than the general allowance as a spec-line allowance. I'm WAY less worried about any broad statement of practice in the rules than I am about something that applies to just a couple of cars specifically, even if in operation the general only actually translates to a few cases. It's about leaving room in the process for shenanigans, to my way of thinking.

The rotaries are an example of this: It's just not possible to think of them using the same practices as piston engines, 'cause they're just freakin' different. That does not however mean that we can generalize ignoring standard practice more broadly, on the argument that we do it for the rotaries.

Some members of the ITAC seem perfectly willing to modify the FWD adjustment, thus there should be no doctrinal reasons to take a stock wheel size adjustment off the table for the orphans and newly classified cars.

The two don't have anything to do with one-another really but I won't argue with either clause separately...

All that said (and I think mostly I was agreeing with you, right?), none of this makes even the allowances I describe here effective at categorically decreasing costs for IT racers. For SOME, yes. For MOST, no. For ALL, not even remotely.

K

lateapex911

06-09-2009, 09:30 AM

Jake, thanks, I dont' know who else in on the itac as no oene else advertises it. Heck I don't even know how many are on it or what weight they carry.

All board and committee info is easy to get with your member number:

http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=89

The ITAC is one of the larger ad hocs, and hovers between 7 and 9 members. Membership is on an invite basis. We try to represent the IT community as a whole, and attempt to diversify geographically, as well as choose members with varying car ownership and class status. Members are required to be active racers, and they must have an IT background.

Currently, you have more access to the ITAC then perhaps ever before. On top of that the ITAC is probably the committee that broke the "keep quiet" rule first, and has used the internet to communicate with, and get the pulse of, the racers at large. I bet there isn't a committee that is so open and has the same level of dialog with it's members as the ITAC. I think that's great for IT, but there are costs to pay for that, and anyone on the ITAC can attest to that.

On this board, you've probably read posts by Josh Sirota, (ITR BMW) Kirk Knestis, (ITB Glf) myself (ITA RX-7), Scott Giles (ITB Honda Civic and our chairman Andy Bettencourt (ITA Miata) . 5 out of 8 is pretty good.

We meet via con call once a month to discuss big picture management issues of IT, internal procedural issues, and we go over letters we get. All of our activity results in recommendations to the CRB, which then decides to support or deny them. Depending on the nature of the recommendation, it is either then enacted on, or sent to the BoD to be voted on. Our last con call went until after 1AM eastern. There always seems to be a lot to cover.

Past ITAC members have been asked to join the CRB. Those are Chris Albin (ITB Golf) and Peter Keane (ITB Accord)

shwah

06-09-2009, 09:32 AM

We haven't received any letters telling us that they want to build a NB but the only thing that is holding them back is the wheel-rule constraint. It's the weight in ITC that is the issue. A move to ITB at a 'we-don't-think-it-can-get-there' weight doesn't change the wheel issue at all.

Andy - there is someone trying to build a New Beetle right now that has posted here in the past month and just realized the wheel issue.

jjjanos

06-09-2009, 10:48 AM

Andy - there is someone trying to build a New Beetle right now that has posted here in the past month and just realized the wheel issue.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26077

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26075

Andy Bettencourt

06-09-2009, 11:37 AM

Like I said guys, we haven't got any letters.

The weight issue will rage forever. The 'I would rather be lighter and not be able to make my spec weight vs. be heavier and be able to run at minimum'. I believe it is in the best interest of the category to have cars classed at weights they can make. I would fully support a move to ITB if someone built one and proved it. as long as they assume they would be in ITC with ballast unless they had info to offer otherwise, it should be fine. If it's too much of a risk, don't build it. It's a tweener and we have no great answers for them. We just do our best - and IMHO classing them appropriately is the best.

On the wheel issue, we have cars already existing in the ITCS that are excluded from using their stock sized wheels so it's not as 'special' as some may think.

It's an interesting topic for sure, one that the ITAC / CRB will continually have to be on top of for sure.

shwah

06-09-2009, 11:53 AM

On the wheel issue, we have cars already existing in the ITCS that are excluded from using their stock sized wheels so it's not as 'special' as some may think.

That is a different case. The issue is not that they are excluded from a stock size. It is that they may not be able to acheive a legal size - or at least have the most legitimate case for this argument to date. When is the last time you found ANY 16x6 wheel? Not just a nice, light, US made, etc. wheel. One at all. Cars that have larger wheels in ITC and ITB may be S.O.L if something does not change.

Andy Bettencourt

06-09-2009, 11:57 AM

That is a different case. The issue is not that they are excluded from a stock size. It is that they may not be able to acheive a legal size - or at least have the most legitimate case for this argument to date. When is the last time you found ANY 16x6 wheel? Not just a nice, light, US made, etc. wheel. One at all. Cars that have larger wheels in ITC and ITB may be S.O.L if something does not change.

How about a 15x6?

But the point is valid. The question is simple. Does 1 or 2 cars promt a proactive categorical change that obsoletes a ton of equipment or is it appropriate to allow a spec-line exception with or without some sort of penalty...

quadzjr

06-09-2009, 03:03 PM

Andy Bettencourt

06-09-2009, 03:19 PM

The use of stock wheels or aftermarket wheels up to six inches in width are permited. Done..

That will atleast allow temporarily the ITC beetle and other cars that fall inot this special catagory to run around legaly and cheaply and get built. no more problem..

Not done. That sounds like an ITB/ITC rule only. What about ITS Porsches that came with 7.5" wheels? What about RX-7's that came with 16" wheels? I bet there were some option packages on some ITR cars that were greater than 17x8.5 too. I am going to make an assumption that you would like to allow the following by your post:

1. Allow any stock wheel that came on the car that is included in the spec line
2. Allow any diamter wheel as long as it is no larger than 6" in width

Questions for you in devil's advocate mode:

1. Only STOCK wheels, correct? Not stock SIZED wheels...
2. What if a newly classed ITB car came with 16x8's. Any penalty for the use of that size in terms of classification weight?

quadzjr

06-09-2009, 03:37 PM

since the topic was about ITB and then the conversation swapped over to the beetle came up in ITC.. my solutions was only for ITB/ITC

I would leave the rule as it states for all classes C->R, but allow cars to run stock wheels, not stock sized. This way it may equal it out. It will give you the option of running lighter wheels with a smaller width, or heavier stock wheels that the car came with.

Especially in the lower level cars wheel weight may cancel the effect of the the higher cross-section.. also if Wombat GT gets classed for ITB that came stock with 8" wheels from the factory I would imagine that.

a. the car was designed to be on performace tires, hence the width

b. and since it is a performance themed vehicle, and is requested to be classed in ITB, and new cars are heaveir then heck already, but they come with more hp stock and bigger wheels.

It is too hard to come up with a definete long term solution.. there are too many variables, and frankly I don't know how the ITAC makes decsions like this, especially knowing that someone is going to be upset with you no matter which way you choose.

personally if I choose to build a car in a class that wheel options were limited (whcih I kind of am.. bolt pattersn are no problem.. but all I can find are wheels for FWD offsets, so I have to run a bunch of spacers jsut to get it back to stock) I would just get some custom steel wheels built. they may not look as cool, but hey are relatively cheap and have any offset, diameter, width, and bolt pattern you are looking for.

shwah

06-09-2009, 05:13 PM

How about a 15x6?

Not legal. Only cars with 13 and 14" wheels may alternatively use 15" wheels. Yes, letting everyone run 15" diameter would also solve the problem in that particular case.

Greg Amy

06-09-2009, 07:59 PM

Not legal.

Ooo, good catch! Ironically, I think it was Andy that was adamant that the diameter-rule-change rule NOT allow competitors to DECREASE their wheel diameter from stock, only increase "up" to 15 inches...the originally-written rule as published required a subsequent re-write to clarify that point, as I recall ("Cars may not fit wheel diameters smaller than those listed on their spec line")...which means, the NB has one wheel size choice. I wonder, does this "bother anyone"... ;)

I think that one gets dropped in the "ow, that one's gonna leave a mark" bucket... ;)

(P.S., Sorry to come across as rude, but all in fun...really...honestly...)

Knestis

06-09-2009, 08:41 PM

Andy Bettencourt

06-09-2009, 08:45 PM

So maybe it's a case of back to the future and the real solution is to take the next (relatively painless, I think) step to allow minus diameter sizes in addition to plus sizes.

I don't want folks to think I (or the ITAC) are completely against finding a solution, because I don't believe that to be the case. We've just got to balance the needs of the category appropriately, against the needs of a few individuals.

K

Ya, it was more of a 'what is an acceptable solution' suggestion/question than 'what we can do legally for this car'. But nice try Greg! :)

Greg Amy

06-09-2009, 09:12 PM

Bah, Humbug!!!

;)

Z3_GoCar

06-09-2009, 09:35 PM

Not legal. Only cars with 13 and 14" wheels may alternatively use 15" wheels. Yes, letting everyone run 15" diameter would also solve the problem in that particular case.

Yeah, that one really sucks for the ITA Z3 as it's only allowed to run 16x7 rims where every other car in ITA can run 15x7's. There for a few years Kosi didn't make their rims in the 16x7 size. I think this was one of many issues with the ITA Z3 that soured the deal for Rob, along with the under-performing motor.

frnkhous

06-09-2009, 10:41 PM

16x6 wheels are available for any car(weight not an issue) at a reasonable cost.

WWW.diamondracingwheels.com

17x6's could likely be made by forgeline, fikse etc. if not by other less expensive vendors. So it isn't impossible just expensive.

I think for now the steel 16x6 wheels cover it but I wouldn't be opposed to allowing decreasing wheel diameter.

RacerBill

06-09-2009, 11:02 PM

16x6 wheels are available for any car(weight not an issue) at a reasonable cost.

WWW.diamondracingwheels.com (http://WWW.diamondracingwheels.com)

17x6's could likely be made by forgeline, fikse etc. if not by other less expensive vendors. So it isn't impossible just expensive.

I think for now the steel 16x6 wheels cover it but I wouldn't be opposed to allowing decreasing wheel diameter.

15X6 :happy204: 22lbs! :( that's heavier than the 18 stock wheels I have now!!!!!!

RLW - I have been lurking on the thread all the time. Sorry to let you carry the load, my bad. Just that I have not had a chance to build up a stock of 15x7's yet. My issue is that I am 63 years old, and humping 40+ lbs of wheel and tire takes a lot out of me.

lateapex911

06-09-2009, 11:48 PM

So maybe it's a case of back to the future and the real solution is to take the next (relatively painless, I think) step to allow minus diameter sizes in addition to plus sizes.

I don't want folks to think I (or the ITAC) are completely against finding a solution, because I don't believe that to be the case. We've just got to balance the needs of the category appropriately, against the needs of a few individuals.

K

That's a much more appetizing solution. Gearing is free, wheel weights are free, so allowing smaller diameter merely gives another avenue to get to those end points. That's all good in my 'hood!

shwah

06-09-2009, 11:57 PM

16x6 wheels are available for any car(weight not an issue) at a reasonable cost.

WWW.diamondracingwheels.com (http://WWW.diamondracingwheels.com)

17x6's could likely be made by forgeline, fikse etc. if not by other less expensive vendors. So it isn't impossible just expensive.

I think for now the steel 16x6 wheels cover it but I wouldn't be opposed to allowing decreasing wheel diameter.

Yes, steel wheels were the only option I was able to recommend to the Beetle builder. There is actually an oem style steel wheel in 5x100 that would work for that car.

rlward

06-10-2009, 12:59 AM

Z3_GoCar

06-10-2009, 01:18 AM

Z3_GoCar

06-10-2009, 01:22 AM

....One other thing, are all atac members from east of the rockies? Someone asked where I race. Cal Club.....

Rodger,

Josh is our West coast ITAC rep.... he's in SFR. Now that you mention it, it's a shame the region that invented IT doesn't have someone on the Ad Hoc.

JoshS

06-10-2009, 01:38 AM

2. What if a newly classed ITB car came with 16x8's. Any penalty for the use of that size in terms of classification weight?
Well, such an example would certainly be different from the ITB norm, which is one of the criteria for an adder.

Greg Amy

06-10-2009, 07:07 AM

15X6 :happy204: 22lbs! :( that's heavier than the 18 stock wheels I have now!!!!!!
Sweet!

Someone have a source for 16x6 wheels for the NB at $200 each and 9 pounds each? That's what you can get from Enkei in the 15x7.

How about 14x6 or 15x6 in 4x114.3 bolt pattern for $200 and 9 pounds each? (<--- I'm pretty seriously looking for that one).

Just askin'.

RexRacer19

06-10-2009, 08:05 AM

How about 14x6 or 15x6 in 4x114.3 bolt pattern for $200 and 9 pounds each? (<--- I'm pretty seriously looking for that one).

Just askin'.

Why not get a set of Kosei wheels, take them to a machine shop, and have them drill an alternate set of holes to your bolt circle? Not sure what offset you need, but just sayin'.

spnkzss

06-10-2009, 08:56 AM

On the NB and "allowing" them to run 15" wheels, isn't that assuming they could? Some cars can't go down 1" in diameter because it won't clear calipers and such. :shrug:

Greg Amy

06-10-2009, 08:58 AM

Why not get a set of Kosei wheels, take them to a machine shop, and have them drill an alternate set of holes to your bolt circle? Not sure what offset you need, but just sayin'.
I've been looking at different wheels toward that end. Unfortunately, a lot of the more-common (read: less expensive lighter) wheels don't have a flat back-face, they're cast with "indentations" (for lack of a better word) where the normal bolt circle doesn't exist (I'd guessing to reduce weight.) SO there's no meat there to recut. I wouldn't mind hearing from folks who have 14/15x6 4x100 wheels in the 10-12 pound range that have fully-cast backfaces...and anyone that's found a machine shop that can properly do this kind of rework at a reasonable price... - GA

gran racing

06-10-2009, 09:12 AM

I don't think there is a way but are you able to legally change your bolt pattern to 4x100 on the hub or some other method?

Have you looked at the Kosei wheels to verify that they can't be used? I'll take a peek tonight.

Greg Amy

06-10-2009, 09:21 AM

I don't think there is a way but are you able to legally change your bolt pattern to 4x100 on the hub or some other method?
It's been argued here that it's illegal, but I believe that since spacers and wheel studs/bolts/lugbolts are free you can use them to change the bolt pattern. However, the car in question (Suzuki) can just barely fit 205 tires between the strut and fenders with stock wheel offset (your 225 tires are totally out of the question, poke, poke ;)), so there's no way you can safely do that with spacers.

Have you looked at the Kosei wheels to verify that they can't be used? I'll take a peek tonight.No. I've looked at Kazera and a couple other SM wheels as they came through the shop, but I've yet to look at Kosei T1 or T1S. - GA

chuck baader

06-10-2009, 09:36 AM

4-114.3 wheels for the Celica are the same as early Z car wheels. Only "0" offset. I have researched 11 wheel manufacturers, and Panasport is the only one that I have found that will make that wheel for you at 15X6"...at roughly $230 each plus the drilling charge...and shipping...and tax...ad nasium:eek:

So gentlemen...we are about to pull the trigger on 8 of these monsters....please make a decision so we don't buy the wrong wheels. Chuck

StephenB

06-10-2009, 10:12 AM

Seriously, I agree with Rodger and Greg. Open it up to what ever fits under the finder over the stock brakes, and around the suspension. I just don't see the reason to have the biggest rim under there. Of course I'm still running 16x7 stock rims that only weigh 18lbs each. The balance comes when you run more tire than the car has weight to handle or hp to spin up. Other than that pull the old "you pick your car warts and all" line.

I posted several times in the begining of this thread and I don't really have any arguements other than what I have posted as I feel that what I have already said clearly explains my view.

However I have to comment on the idea above. (Not to pick on you z3_gocar but you where the last to suggest this idea again) IS this honestly something you would really consider! Dave Gran posted some sizes of rims that would fit under the fenders for Volvos and I think Saabs. If anyone thinks that ITB is all about HP and such I think diefferently and I truelly think that MOMENTUM is huge! with 13inches of Rubber under a Volvo (or a size somewhere between 6inch to 13inch) I certainly think they will GAIN corner speed and therefor momentum and will drop lap times significantly.

would you take the challenge to race for pinks with your car... you on 4" wide tires and me on 10" wide tires?

Someone said it on some thread... Size matters :blink:

I strongly suggest that we do not consider the "if it fits run it" idea. Other ideas that have been posted are good alternatives... I still stick to the idea that you should be able to run the stock rims that came from the factory on your car. "IT catagory rules" do not guarentee competiveness and if you want the lighter rims they exist for a price.

Stephen

StephenB

06-10-2009, 10:21 AM

[QUOTE=rlward;289693]
I was ok on weight untill the killer heat, want to add a cool suit but that weight has to be offset and the only place left is wheels.

QUOTE]

Roger,

Do you want lighter wheels then stock to meet minimum weight? If that is the reason I am less sympathetic. I thought your bitterness was because the "move" forced you to purchase new rims?

Stephen

spnkzss

06-10-2009, 10:23 AM

I posted several times in the begining of this thread and I don't really have any arguements other than what I have posted as I feel that what I have already said clearly explains my view.

However I have to comment on the idea above. (Not to pick on you z3_gocar but you where the last to suggest this idea again) IS this honestly something you would really consider! Dave Gran posted some sizes of rims that would fit under the fenders for Volvos and I think Saabs. If anyone thinks that ITB is all about HP and such I think diefferently and I truelly think that MOMENTUM is huge! with 13inches of Rubber under a Volvo (or a size somewhere between 6inch to 13inch) I certainly think they will GAIN corner speed and therefor momentum and will drop lap times significantly.

would you take the challenge to race for pinks with your car... you on 4" wide tires and me on 10" wide tires?

Someone said it on some thread... Size matters :blink:

I strongly suggest that we do not consider the "if it fits run it" idea. Other ideas that have been posted are good alternatives... I still stick to the idea that you should be able to run the stock rims that came from the factory on your car. "IT catagory rules" do not guarentee competiveness and if you want the lighter rims they exist for a price.

Stephen

And you assume in the lower HP cars that a 9" rim won't slow you down in the corner.

StephenB

06-10-2009, 10:45 AM

And you assume in the lower HP cars that a 9" rim won't slow you down in the corner.

It quite possibly could but I don't know and that's a "chance" I don't think we should take.

And lets say your correct a low HP car would slow down... like a Suzuki. But what about a high HP car (in comparison for the class) like a volvo or Audi? Are they affected and will they be slower? If I could fit more rubber on the front of my car I do think I could go faster at some tracks. LRP is an example... I really do think I could go faster if I could get more rubber under the front of my car that weighs in at almost 1700lbs in front of the front wheels. More sustained momentum around a track like this and I would argue my lap times will drop. This is an example of how I am NOT thinking selfishly here as my car has more HP and tourque than most ITB cars and I think I would be one that could benefit.

If the only reason ITR cars need the wider tires is for the extra HP then why don't they run 6inch wide rims on the front of their rear wheel drive cars? I think it helps them with maintaining grip on entry into the corners and increasing apex speed and exit speed after the apex resulting in a greater entry speed onto the straights. Basically keeps your momentum UP increasing lap times.

JMHO it could be totally wrong but I don't have any data to support or negate it and I think the "Chance" to mess things up is high and the chance that it could upset a class that I think is pretty good with a large variaty of "cars to have" as is.

When the ITAC decides they want input on the subject I will write a letter supporting the current rules with an added allowance for stock rims from the factory be allowed. Good converstation and topic I honestly had no idea that this problem existed in my little bubble :)

Andy Bettencourt

06-10-2009, 10:50 AM

On the NB and "allowing" them to run 15" wheels, isn't that assuming they could? Some cars can't go down 1" in diameter because it won't clear calipers and such. :shrug:

Most 'regular cars' can go down one size. A quick check on TireRack shows a 15" snow tire package with steel wheels.

Knestis

06-10-2009, 11:50 AM

>> So gentlemen...we are about to pull the trigger on 8 of these monsters....please make a decision so we don't buy the wrong wheels. Chuck

Sorry, Chuck but that's simply not fair to dump that decision - and the consequences - back on the ITAC. Not only is it not appropriate for us to make category-wide decisions based on individual needs, we can't control timelines to suit one racer's buying plans.

You need to do what you need to do based on the best information available at the point at which you make your decision but you DO make an illustrative case for why change - ANY change - has costs: If you can act based on reasonable confidence that things won't be different next season, you are generally better off.

K

Greg Amy

06-10-2009, 12:04 PM

A lot of people think "more tire is better"; that ain't necessarily true. I've proven to more than a few folks that unless you're getting the heat, the wider tire is slowing you down (my fav story is the PCA guy who was running ungodly-wide tires and was going slow; I talked him into trying a ~2" - yes, 2 inches - reduction in section width and he picked up 2 seconds at LRP...) So, unless you're logging tire temps, you just don't know.

That's why my having to run 205mm tires on a 1900# car really doesn't bother me TOO much (and why seeing guys stuff 225 tires on a 6" wheel and crowning the contact patch doesn't impress me too much). If 6-inch-wheel drivers - especially the lighter cars - haven't tested 205 tires on 6" wheels you may be leaving time on the table...

In the end, I just personally wish I had the opportunity to buy a lightweight 6" wheel at a decent price like the 15x7 guys do...

On that side note: Kazera T1S can't be re-drilled. Cameron told me there's "voids" 45 degrees between the existing bolt holes (he noted that's probably where a lot of the weight reduction came from), just like the Kazeras, Enkeis, and other ~13-pound SM wheels I've looked over...so, no 9-pound wheels available to Joe Suzuki... :shrug: - GA

lateapex911

06-10-2009, 02:50 PM

A lot of people think "more tire is better"; ......

That's why my having to run 205mm tires on a 1900# car really doesn't bother me TOO much (and why seeing guys stuff 225 tires on a 6" wheel and crowning the contact patch doesn't impress me too much). If 6-inch-wheel drivers - especially the lighter cars - haven't tested 205 tires on 6" wheels you may be leaving time on the table...

Ah HA! There it is, LOL. Exactly, stuffing a larger tire on too narrow a rim is often not ideal. But Ive asked a lot of those guys, and the answer I've gotten, is "Yea, it's shady, but lap times are better with the big rubber than the smaller size". Hmmmm.
Two things could be happening. They're lying and assume it's better, or they actually know.

Here is the bottom line:
SOme cars will be fastest on smaller naroower rims...at certain tracks, and faster on wider rubber at other tracks.
OTHER cars will be faster on wider rims at all tracks.

Opening up to allowable width will result in certain cars acheiving never before possible speed and lap times. Period. Can you predict which cars, at which tracks?
Does it matter if you can? Not really.....but knowing that it will happen makes the real question:

Do we want to change the performance envelope for the class(es)? And if so, do we wish to do it in a random and unpredictable manner?

Greg Amy

06-10-2009, 03:17 PM

Do we want to change the performance envelope for the class(es)?
I suggest one must assume that a change in wheel width will result in a performance envelope change for the class.

Though, anecdotally speaking, I don't see it as significant. <---placed in a separate paragraph intentionally...

And if so, do we wish to do it in a random and unpredictable manner?No more random and unpredictable than the current classification process (your secondary question implies the ITAC/CRB has considered all factors in wheels fitment, tire fitment, track, and performance capabilities - and their effects on equitable competition - for each car when classifying/reclassifying ITB and ITC cars. We both know this is not true.) Ergo, a change that is applied to all cars effects the class, on average, equitably (in terms of performance).

GA

RexRacer19

06-10-2009, 03:43 PM

That's why my having to run 205mm tires on a 1900# car really doesn't bother me TOO much (and why seeing guys stuff 225 tires on a 6" wheel and crowning the contact patch doesn't impress me too much). If 6-inch-wheel drivers - especially the lighter cars - haven't tested 205 tires on 6" wheels you may be leaving time on the table...

I am running the 205s on my car. As much as I try, I can't justify putting a 225 (hoosier) on a 6" wide wheel. Less rotating mass, less drag (aero and mechanical), I need all the help I can get with 1.5 liters...as do you tGA.

lateapex911

06-10-2009, 03:44 PM

I suggest one must assume that a change in wheel width will result in a performance envelope change for the class.

GA

If one model finds the ability to run significantly more rubber, and can benefit, then the performance envelope just changed.....
...can we say that will NOT happen?

Greg Amy

06-10-2009, 03:48 PM

If one model finds the ability to run significantly more rubber, and can benefit, then the performance envelope just changed...can we say that will NOT happen?
If, under the current rules, one car can benefit by running more rubber than others, then the competition parity is ALREADY skewed...

Note, Jake, that above I agreed that the performance envelope WILL LIKELY change (though I suggest not as significant as you might think). However, I'm simply pointing out that, on average, it will affect everyone equally - certainly as "equally" as it does now (or as equally as it does in ITA). - GA

Bill Miller

06-10-2009, 03:48 PM

Can't believe you guys are still at this.

shwah

06-10-2009, 04:10 PM

That's why my having to run 205mm tires on a 1900# car really doesn't bother me TOO much (and why seeing guys stuff 225 tires on a 6" wheel and crowning the contact patch doesn't impress me too much). If 6-inch-wheel drivers - especially the lighter cars - haven't tested 205 tires on 6" wheels you may be leaving time on the table...
Contact patch is not always the only variable impacted by changing to another tire size available for your car. I was not in search of grip when I went to 225s.

lateapex911

06-10-2009, 04:36 PM

Can't believe you guys are still at this.

Now Bill, don't get all righteous on us! :)

gran racing

06-10-2009, 04:51 PM

A lot of people think "more tire is better"; that ain't necessarily true.

There are many variables but it absolutely will allow some cars to benefit by allowing a larger diameter rim. Want a bigger contact patch but can't generate enough heat? Use autocross tires like some of the CRXs do. At a track momentum track like Lime Rock, I'd sure be interested in using a wider rim. Watkins Glen? Not nearly as much.

quadzjr

06-10-2009, 05:51 PM

Contact patch is not always the only variable impacted by changing to another tire size available for your car. I was not in search of grip when I went to 225s.

Assuming tire compound equal.. in going to a 225 over a 205, the 225's are heavier, and more rolling resistance.. the only advantage on the 205 is the contact patch.. which allows more grip and allows the tire to disperse a load over a larger area for a given load relative to a 205 to keep tire temps down, and should last just a bit longer for the same reason. all of which is still related to grip. Or am I missing something?

bamfp

06-10-2009, 06:59 PM

I am selling my 6" wheels for the 914 and running the stock 5.5" wheels with 205/50/15 SM6 on it. If a SM can run 1:42 on them at Road A my car should be able to run 1:47 on them. So far the tire temps are good. I rolled a 225/45/15 mounded on a 6" wheel through flour and then a 205/50/15 on a 5.5" rim. There was not much difference for me to switch.

Blake Meredith

Bill Miller

06-10-2009, 07:14 PM

Now Bill, don't get all righteous on us! :)

Jake,

I'll take 'righteous' over 'inconsistent' any day.

But, the competitive reality is that you have just started a spending war with such a change. Those with the $ will raise the bar if they can, and those who had worked their way into a competitive position ...but aren't as well flushed are now looking at mandatory expense just to regain their former competitive level.

I don't recall you taking this kind of a position over the open ECU issue.

Do you really want to get into this w/ me again? Truth be told, it was your disingenuous comments and self-promotion that were the main reasons I left here to begin with. I'm beginning to think stopping by was not so good an idea.

lateapex911

06-10-2009, 07:43 PM

Jake,

I'll take 'righteous' over 'inconsistent' any day.

I don't recall you taking this kind of a position over the open ECU issue.

Do you really want to get into this w/ me again? Truth be told, it was your disingenuous comments and self-promotion that were the main reasons I left here to begin with. I'm beginning to think stopping by was not so good an idea.

Uh ...sure Bill.

frnkhous

06-10-2009, 09:46 PM

tga, your looking at the wrong end for this broad change you propose of no wheel rule. Think about a front wheel drive ITS prelude now being able to run a 15x9" wheel with a 275/35 15 tire up front. You don't think that is gonna be a huge help? If he can't get them hot enough just run A's instead of R's. I'd much rather see the rule made 7" to be identical in itc-its than to open it up completely. I'm positive that somewhere maybe barber even my itc car would be faster with a 225/45 15 in an autox compound on a 15x7.5 wheel. Think of it more like a big gocart, slight lift and turn to scrub speed. No partial throttle, just lift/brake turn full throttle, even if it is still scrubbing a little speed down to the apex you just enter faster. Prod cars do it with 100-140 hp(more obviously for some cars/classes), why do you guys think are cars will react any different to more grip? I do think places like turn 1 at mid ohio would simply slow my car to have more tire, but not enough to make me not run it for the carosel, the keyhole, and the esses. Not to mention I'm sure I can carry more speed into thundervalley with more tire. If the logic that more grip/tire can be bad why don't low hp production guys run DOT tires to lose some grip, maybe whe should all run 195/60 r14 615 azenis cause without all that mad grip slowing us down in the corners we will go faster. Sorry, but Jake is right, speeds would go up significantly on some cars, and I can't believe from a cost standpoint anyone would suggest this as acceptable. tga, if you were building lets say a fwd its car, I'm positive you'd now want more front tire, now if said car wasn't a 4x100 bolt pattern your back to high dollar wheels, What have you fixed? Allow downsizing to 15" wheels, make the rule 7"inches wide, tell them to get kodiak racing wheels or similar in a 16x6 17x6 size because they can, I don't care but opening up the rule Is stupid and cost prohibitive period.

Brian Frank

rlward

06-11-2009, 12:53 AM

Steven,
I had just purchased 7" rims and was then reclassed. That $ is wasted.

fitment still seems to be the best answer that works accross the board for all classs now and in the future.

lateapex911

06-11-2009, 01:46 AM

Rodger, what date (approx) did you buy the wheels?

Greg Amy

06-11-2009, 09:07 AM

Rodger, what date (approx) did you buy the wheels?
Jake, at the risk of seeming rude (not intended) let's not use lawyer tactics of trying to publicly trap someone. Attack the message, not the messenger... - GA

Andy Bettencourt

06-11-2009, 09:17 AM

Greg,

Since I can never figure it out, how about someone set up a poll on this. What would we use for options?

1. Rule as is
2. Allow OEM wheels
3. Allow stock SIZED wheels
4. Move ITC and ITB to 7" width
5. Open up IT to any wheel size

quadzjr

06-11-2009, 10:01 AM

I am for rule 1-2

Greg Amy

06-11-2009, 10:06 AM

...how about someone set up a poll on this.
Done.

Knestis

06-11-2009, 10:29 AM

A poll posits possible solutions but we aren't clear what the problem is. Or more accurately, there are a bunch of problems - some real, some red herrings I think - presented here. Unless we're clear on what we're trying to DO, the chances of getting the action right is pretty slim.

K

StephenB

06-11-2009, 11:28 AM

Steven,
I had just purchased 7" rims and was then reclassed. That $ is wasted..
Thanks for clarifying Roger. From the post I quoted earlier I thought maybe you were reclassified and could no longer meet minimum weight so you wanted to get lighter rims to acheive it. I definetly sympathize with you and feel bad that the reclassification didn't work out for you. I honestly think you should be able to run ITA with the original specifications you built your car to. (eventhough you probably have a better chance at running in the front on stock rims, but IMHO that should be your choice.) I think you are one of the examples on how a rule change can hurt some people eventhough they appear to be better for the make/class in the overall perspective. I feel bad that you feel like you got a rotton deal especially if you spent the extra $$ and if you built the car planning on running with friends.

fitment still seems to be the best answer that works accross the board for all classs now and in the future.
I will continue to have a different opinion but that's what makes us human! I congratulate you for sticking to your idea just don't hold a grudge against those of us that disagree with you :) Remember there is always someone getting screwed with a rule change. As far as $$ spent I am on the other side of the fence as I have already purchased my 6" rims (2 more spares 1 race ago) and for me if this rule changes then instead of you getting screwed out of $$ I am. However with your new rule I think I can go MUCH faster so if it does change I will be purchasing new rims at some point! I have no problem getting my 225 tires that are stuffed onto a 6" rim up to tempature and I would love to go a little wider! If you ever see my car you would be shocked... I have 1700lbs on the front tires and 750 on the rears. Its not a "normal" 1700lbs, I have the see-saw affect where the ENTIRE engine and the majority of the weight is not over but in front of the front wheels. weird setup and unlike any other ITB car. I currently run 225 in front and 205 in the rear and always come in at or around 200degrees. one thing not mentioned here is that it is more than just tire width that changes the temps on the tires, I have personally found that shocks rates and spring rates play a huge role in this as well.

Stephen

PS: If the ITAC decides to talk about this and solicite member feedback what is the process? Does this forum influence the members of the ITAC or do they strictly go by the letters they recieve? The reason I ask is that very few members in the IT comunity probably have read this thread so a majority of them have no idea that the ITAC is even thinking about any changes.

Andy Bettencourt

06-11-2009, 11:37 AM

The reason I ask is that very few members in the IT comunity probably have read this thread so a majority of them have no idea that the ITAC is even thinking about any changes.

We really aren't. One thiing people have to remember is that this board may have ITAC members commenting on issues - but that really has nothing to do with what is on the plate in terms of 'official' business.

StephenB

06-11-2009, 11:46 AM

Thanks Andy :) That's what I was hoping for just wasn't sure.

lateapex911

06-11-2009, 02:11 PM

Interesting poll. I'd be really interested if we could somehow segment the ITB and ITC responders answers.

quadzjr

06-11-2009, 02:17 PM

how did Z3GoCar and GA get to vote twice?

Knestis

06-11-2009, 02:32 PM

You can "select all that apply" with web form checkboxes.

K

quadzjr

06-11-2009, 04:08 PM

You can "select all that apply" with web form checkboxes.

K

Doh I should of done that.. for 1 and 2.. ohh well. .

Andy Bettencourt

06-11-2009, 04:47 PM

Options?

Revolution Wheels. http://www.revolutionwheels.com/index.php

Interestingly tons of 13x6 and 15x6 options...evan a 16x5.5...but no 14"

JoshS

06-11-2009, 05:39 PM

Interestingly tons of 13x6 and 15x6 options...evan a 16x5.5...but no 14"

14x6 in the Minator: http://www.revolutionwheels.com/minator/

RacerBill

06-11-2009, 06:04 PM

So bill, what is your take? I'm only 18 till i die (63), and I like my car. Have you been able to find any 15x6 other than stock? Did you get any 7" before the switch? I thought about machining the wheel to accept a lighter rim, but could not find anybody that would take on the project and can't do it myself with any confidence.

One other thing, are all atac members from east of the rockies? Someone asked where I race. Cal Club.

I was ok on weight untill the killer heat, want to add a cool suit but that weight has to be offset and the only place left is wheels.

I looked every where for wheels. No cars left, it seem the air nazies have offered a bounty on 80's dodge products, nothing in wrecking yards out here, all crushed.

To everyone else, including the beatle builders, wouldn't the fitment solution take care of the entire problem? I can't see where we could advocate/demand running on smaller wheels than came stock, has anyone looked at the max load for tires? And, if everyone is against a spec line allowance, although there may/will be costs involved isn't that still the best solution over the long run? We need to find a viable solution, even if it is not 7" in ITB.

Roger: How bout that - I'm 18 (63) too! My take is that I would love to be able to use 7" wheels. I did not get any before the switch, so I am not in as bad a position as you are. My company where I worked for 10 years just downsized, so my racing budget is REALLY constrained this year. The ad on the inside cover of the issue of Sports Car that just arrived shows only one 15x6 wheel at $300 each. But 8 wheels at 15x7, from $115 to $473, and from 9.3 to 13 lbs. Certainly a much larger selection. I will say that I have not investigated the availability of 7" wheels in 13" or 14", and that definitely effects other cars in the class.

One thing that has not been brought up is the fact that the spec line in the ITCS for the Shelby specifies 15" wheels.

So, my emotions are kind of mixed. I would love to be able to save 7lbs a wheel at a reasonable cost. Still, I can understand the concerns of other ITB/ITC drivers.

kgobey

06-11-2009, 06:43 PM

The only reason we should "allow" the larger wheel size is when the competition tires dry up for 13 and 14 inch wheels. Really otherwise this "cost effective class" get's that much further away from it original intention. (we've been repeating this same sentiment for 20 years now, what's changed?

RacerBill

06-11-2009, 06:56 PM

Thanks for clarifying Roger...

As far as $$ spent I am on the other side of the fence as I have already purchased my 6" rims (2 more spares 1 race ago) and for me if this rule changes then instead of you getting screwed out of $$ I am.

Not quite, Stephen. You can still run your 6" rims and be legal (there is a perception here that you will not be quite as competitive if other cars go to 7"). But Roger cannot run legally in ITB with the wheels he just bought, and MUST purchase new 15x6's.

I see a difference with having to buy new wheels just to keep up with the Joneses and having to buy new wheels in order to be able to race legally. BTW, I have had stewards tell me they would not measure my wheel widths, implying that I should go ahead and buy the 7's. I do agree that that is just not right!

Matt Rowe

06-11-2009, 07:25 PM

Although I have kept quiet through 12 (really 12 pages?) of this. You can certainly add me to the list of Shelby owners that was impacted by the change. Having gone through a couple of years of informal discussions on the car and seen the effects of the original great re-alignment with no change to car, I also purchase ~$1100 worth of wheels in February/March of 2007. Additionally, about a month before the Shelby reclassification was announced I committed to a different car having decided I was no longer gaining anything from running a car that would never be competitive. So in some ways I was doubly hit by the reclassification. The only saving grace was the wheels work equally well on my new weapon of choice.

However, no matter how much I may dislike the timeline and effect of reclassing this particular car, I still don't see that as the right argument for doing away with the 6" ITB/ITC rule. These types of effects are limited and it's obvious that the greater benefit is in the status quo. Just don't tell me (or anyone else in this situation) that they should be happy they wasted that money and development time. Commiserate with me, agree that it's tough, suggest that long term there is a bright side, whatever. But no one is going to be happy their car is now illegal and they have to spend money just to get back on track.

Now, I do think it's worth looking at the long term issues and seeing if there is a genuine need to reassess the wheel width rule. And I say that only because there appears to be quite a bit of differing opinion on the effects of wheel width on this particular category.

Obviously in an open ruleset, wider is better. With our limitations? Maybe the effect is minimal or it even damps out some of the other non-linear effects of weight. For instance, we have been debating if adders for different factors apply differently to heavy cars vs light cars. That may change if each car was able to run a similar weight vs tread width value. Obviously that's a complex problem to analyze and 12 more pages aren't going to resolve it but should is the wheel width limitation worth reviewing? Maybe?

Matt Rowe

06-11-2009, 07:28 PM

One more thing. The poll is missing the option:

ITAC to investigate if a new long term strategy for wheel/tire limitations is needed

Knestis

06-11-2009, 08:57 PM

>> One thing that has not been brought up is the fact that the spec line in the ITCS for the Shelby specifies 15" wheels.

Waitaminute. Did any of the year/make/model cars on that spec line come with 14s...???

K

Greg Amy

06-11-2009, 09:40 PM

Did any of the year/make/model cars on that spec line come with 14s...???
Nope. Shelby Chargers all had 15" wheels.

I think his point was that he's in a position where he's got only ONE wheel size choice (well, he could go smaller, but that's a silly argument...) - GA

Z3_GoCar

06-11-2009, 10:31 PM

Nope. Shelby Chargers all had 15" wheels.

I think his point was that he's in a position where he's got only ONE wheel size choice (well, he could go smaller, but that's a silly argument...) - GA

Actually, they can't... If the spec line says 15" that's the only diameter rim they can run. Same as the ITA Z3's came only with 16" rims, can't run 15" rims. Technically I can't run 16" rims on my ITR Z3 because the spec line says 17" but they did come with both 16" and 17" rims, so in my case the spec line is wrong.

Z3_GoCar

06-11-2009, 10:34 PM

how did Z3GoCar and GA get to vote twice?

Because we both know the secret hand shake :D

ekim952522000

06-11-2009, 10:48 PM

I would have like a choice that said "leave the width rule as is for all classes but make the diameter free."

Greg Amy

06-12-2009, 07:04 AM

Actually, they can't... If the spec line says 15" that's the only diameter rim they can run...
Smaller WIDTH (topic of discussion at hand...) - GA

gran racing

06-12-2009, 08:09 AM

that they should be happy they wasted that money and development time.

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?

Knestis

06-12-2009, 08:40 AM

Having given this a lot of noodle time, I think I've finally fixed on a position for myself. It's necessary to think of the issues at hand separately, or we overreach and maximize the chance for unintended consequences I believe...

Problem 1 - Owners of cars that get moved from A to B (a relatively common move compared to all other possibilities, even if moves really aren't all that common) are unduly imposed upon because their 7" wheels are illegal for their new class.

Solution - A two-year, closed-ended dual classification to ease the transition for current owners, with the specifications in both classes defined by current practices. Apply this category-wide, extended to a 2-year sunset of the e36 ITS/ITR dual listing. Append such listings in the ITCS with a footnote indicating their expiration date.

We ought to be sensitive to the imposition on individual members when a decision is made, thought to be good for the entire category. However, it's simply not reasonable to disrupt an entire category's worth of rules to accommodate a small number of cars in an unusual situation. Taking the broader view on this (rather than focusing just on wheels) accomplishes that without long-term impacts on the category, and the wheel issue is ameliorated.

Problem 2 - Newly classified cars may have stock wheels wider than allowed by the IT class where they end up. This may force some into unreasonably difficult situations re: availability, fitment, etc.

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.

This would be consistent with the broadest assumptions of the category and would give racers in a wheel pickle the most affordable solution to supply problems. It should never be illegal in IT to "do nothing" to the car, in any respect. The stock wheel weight vs. extra width variables are noise in the system.

For what it might be worth...

K