Wheel diameter rule change Poll

[rage_racing]

okay thats what I wasnt sure of .. not sure what honda these came off of though!!!! anyone need a set of 14x6 honda rims lol

[Geo]

Originally posted by Jake:
No - because of SCCA's cruel Joke, you need to get rid of those 14's because they were not original equipment on your car. You need to find some little dinky 13" rims to race on.

Keep writing to the CB. PLEASE.

We get regular requests to open this rule up. I am 100% behind this change, but am still having trouble convincing some in the ITAC that this rule is becoming a serious problem. I'm not familiar with 13" wheel availability (probably worse than 14"), but there is currently only one supplier for 14x7 wheels (Panasport). The requirement to purchase special racing wheels seems to me to be much further from the intent of IT than allowing larger wheels is.

Please write. If the CB keeps getting letters (which are forwarded to the ITAC) requesting this, the CB and the ITAC will have to give this matter more serious consideration.

Lest you believe I am pushing this for my own purposes, don't. My 944 is not only allowed 15" wheels, but I am also allowed 16" wheels (I'm still going to run 15" because I think the 16" will be of no advantage). The point is, this does not affect me or my car personally. This in no way improves my position. I think it is the right thing to do for IT and is way over due.


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

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Geo:
Keep writing to the CB. PLEASE.

We get regular requests to open this rule up. I am 100% behind this change, but am still having trouble convincing some in the ITAC that this rule is becoming a serious problem.......

Hey Geo.....any idea of the reasons behind the reluctance?? I think it's a good idea, although I have no interest in changing.



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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Geo:
Keep writing to the CB... PLEASE...

We get regular requests to open this rule up. I am 100% behind this change, but am still having trouble convincing some in the ITAC that this rule is becoming a serious problem.

I'm behind Geo on this one, and fully agree that we need all of you to write with your thoughts on the matter...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited September 25, 2003).]

[RacerBill]

Since the car I intend to race in ITA came with 14 wheels, and also the fact that the car, '83 Shelby Dodge, will probably not be a front runner, I don't think I have much skin in the game.

However, I must agree that allowing different wheel sizes is needed change, and fits just as well within the spirit of the class when you look at all the other changes that have been lobbied, errr, added over the years. As a matter of fact, it makes much more sense than coil-overs, etc.
If the CB would give up the information, they would probably say that the additions were made because repacement parts that fit the description of 'stock' were getting scarce. At least that's the reason they give for why we have fiberglass bodies, etc. on 'production' cars.

I will write to the CA to show my support.

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Hey Geo.....any idea of the reasons behind the reluctance??

I think there are a handful of reasons.

1) The (IMHO) inaccurate belief that they will be a big competitive advantage.

Testing by various magazines with same car, same wheel in different diameters, and same tires in different wheel diameters and same OD have yielded results that are generally marginal and also conflicting. In the end it is my belief that there is and improvement in feel, but generally there is no real improvement in lap times due in large part to the fact larger diameter wheels are heavier and harder to accelerate.

2) Resistance to "rules creep."

While a commendable position, as has already been pointed out, they are less of a rules creep than other allowed modifications. Furthermore, I believe opening up the wheel diameters is much more in keeping with the class philosophy than spherical bearings and coilovers.

3) The belief that wheels are still available.

The problem is, in many sizes, wheels are becoming very scarce. It's not (IMHO) within class philosophy (sp?) to require competitors to purchase special race wheels to go racing in IT. Yes, I know you can run narrower tires, but let's be real here.

Furthermore, I think some of the people who think wheels are still available have cars for which they either have long had a good supply of wheels, or they have cars for which wheels are still reasonably easy to find. Just try finding 14x7 wheels. Your only source is Panasport.

To reiterate, I think it's time we change this rule for a couple of reasons.

1) Availability - let's change it now while we have the "luxury" of taking just a bit of time to make a well thought out rule rather than suddenly having to change because nobody is offering them new anymore and then have to make a panic decision.

2) It fits class philosophy - when IT was originally developed, the idea was to take SS cars and others and allow some simple, basic, modifications using commonly available parts. The aftermarket has changed in the last 25 years and this rule is an anachronism. Let's change the rule to reflect this.


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

[Knestis]

It strikes me that this will be a particularly timely issue if the performance compensation thing goes through: Any car moved from A to B will lose an inch of width so maybe the issue is addressed holistically and width being on the table for consideration as well...?

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis:
It strikes me that this will be a particularly timely issue if the performance compensation thing goes through: Any car moved from A to B will lose an inch of width so maybe the issue is addressed holistically and width being on the table for consideration as well...?

K

You know, that is exceptionally astute Kirk. This would further pave the way for reclassifications with a minimum of pain for the car owners. It will eliminate a barrier for reclassification.

I will bring this up with the ITAC.


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

Something else that might make a difference.
If cars were allowed to run 15 inch instead of only being allowed 14 inch in IT (just picking one size as a demostration), it would make crossover to Production that much easier.

If a competitior wanted to race one weekend in IT he could just have one size and/or brand of wheels if his choosing, then if he were to decide that he wanted to run EP the rest of the season or just the next couple races, all they would need to do is get the appropriate tires, and not spend the extra money to buy wheels and tires.
If the SCCA wants to encourage this type of cross-over racing, then it would behoove them to make it as financially viable for any and all competitors.

For instance, if a 240Z driver were to be allowed 15 inch in ITS, then all he would truly need to do to run EP would be to change tires. Not everyone is going to have 4-8 sets of wheels at their disposal to run multiple classes. A large number of IT cars could make the crossover to Production with little more than window clips and the wheel/tire combo.
Maybe if that were included in the letters it might make a few points in our favor for opening up the rule.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by 2Many Z's:
For instance, if a 240Z driver were to be allowed 15 inch in ITS, then all he would truly need to do to run EP would be to change tires.

Actually, are slicks required in Prod?? From what I've seen lots of ITS cars run EP times regionally. Of course, you won't be runoffs bound, but you could be respectable regionally.



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

Good question... I'm waiting for the 2004 GCR and rules to come off the press before I spend the money on them, so I don't know if slicks are required in Production or not...

And for what it's worth, the ITS lap record set at the Labor Day Double at Summit Point, was a couple hundredths under the winning EP cars fastest race lap that weekend....... yup, it was an E-36... regional, but still... makes you realize just how fast those E-36's can be.....more fuel to the debate that the E-36 probably should have been put in EP to begin with and not ITS....

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by 2Many Z's:
... so I don't know if slicks are required in Production or not...

PCS - 17.1.1.D.8. Wheels and Tires

b. Tires: Cars shall utilize tires meeting or exceeding the requirements of GCR Section 11.2.1.D.

GCR - 11.2.1.

"D. Tires - 120 mph-rated or better unless otherwise specified or controlled."

So... NO, Slicks are NOT required...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[x-ring]

"Just try finding 14x7 wheels. Your only source is Panasport."

George, Koenig makes a wheel in 14x7x114.3 called the Rewind that looks similar to a Panasport. I think they're around 13.2 lbs and retail at about $100.

There is a guy on the west cost that posts a sale notice over on zcar.com periodically, four wheels for $325 plus shipping.

I know you don't drive a Datsun, and it's not exactly on subject, but I thought I'd just toss it out for general information.

Hijacking complete.

BTW, I support the change. I'll get a letter off this weekend.

Ty

[ITA_CRX]

What is the opinion for how this rule should be changed?

Is it just to allow larger diameter wheels or is it to allow you to change the diameter of the wheel?

I'd think that some cars with 15/16s would like to run smaller rims.

Jamie

[Geo]

Originally posted by ITA_CRX:
What is the opinion for how this rule should be changed?

Is it just to allow larger diameter wheels or is it to allow you to change the diameter of the wheel?

My personal inclination would be to allow any wheel that fits fully under the wheelwheel (wheel nor tire may stick out beyond the widest part of the fender).

Originally posted by ITA_CRX:
I'd think that some cars with 15/16s would like to run smaller rims.

I wish them good luck for finding them in widths appropriate for racing. They are not readily available and are expensive.


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

Just a side note on the Koenig Rewinds.
From what has been discussed on another Z car board, the guy that is selling them bought up a bunch when Koenig decided to drop the model from their line of wheels. So, supply is limited to the wheels he is selling and/or other used wheels. Kinda like buying a used set of early AR wheels, you need a replacement, you might be SOL.

[Super Swift]

Well because of the car I run I want to be able to run 12 inch rims. I also agree some wheel sizes are hard to find. And changing the rule would make it easier for some to find light racing wheels.

But… Free wheel size is huge "rule creep" and this whole topic is against class philosophy. Sorry Geo, but I feel modifications such as coilovers and spherical bearings are part of the class philosophy.

My only hope is that if the rule is changed smaller diameter wheels will also be aloud.

[Knestis]

This becomes an interesting case of unintended consequences, as these things often do. Allowing smaller wheels is completely contrary to the reasoning behind the original suggestion - wheels LARGER than 14" are easy to find. Those smaller than 15" are HARDER to find so supporting the idea of a rule change to go that route is no longer rationalized by the original premise.

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Super Swift:
But… Free wheel size is huge "rule creep" and this whole topic is against class philosophy. Sorry Geo, but I feel modifications such as coilovers and spherical bearings are part of the class philosophy.

Are you bloody kidding me????

Spherical bearings within the class philosophy of IT? Production, yes. IT, hell no. I could see allowing alternate materials, but not metal, i.e. spherical bearings. This would allow Urethane and other high density materials that are commonly available for most cars.

Why do you think open wheel diameters is against class philosophy? Especially when stock diameter wheels are getting near impossible to find for many cars?

Spherical bearings? I'm still blown away by that. IMHO they should go the way of RR dampers.



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

[Super Swift]

Geo- Cheap. Solid. Bushing. nuff said. Opinions differ and that’s life.

Kirt- The whole reason this topic started is because some people feel they can go faster on larger wheels the rest is political jargon to try and sway the masses. I feel I will go faster on smaller wheels, so I want (if and only if the rule is changed) wheel sizes to be free across the board.

Just to make it clear I am still against changing the rule.