Wheel diameter rule change Poll

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

Didn't you make a comment to me a couple of weeks ago about a goat?

Bill... I have no idea what you are talking about... or even how it might be applicable...
Perhaps if you want to dig that quote up, you can refresh my memory... Not that I really give a rip right now...

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 10, 2003).]

[oanglade]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
So that's a justification to accelerate the process?

It's a justification to offer alternatives as early as possible instead of just sit and wait for things to happen.

[Jake]

Bill, I get your point - just don't agree. I would actually argue the other way. If wheel diameter was open I think you would find more people using 13" wheels (less unsprung weight, a cheap way to change gearing, and it lowers the car without altering the suspension geometry as much). Ever watch the SP guys at the autocrosses? They are almost all using 13" wheels. That's what pushed Kumho to come out with thier 215/50-13 and 235/45-13 sizes.

[Jake]

Back to the proposal. What to do about width? I'd really like width open if it fits. Unfortuntaly, this could obsolete ITB and ITC wheel inventories because wheel width IS an advantage. However, if we accept that 13" and 14" race tires are beginning to die and don't allow the B and C guys wider widths - allowing them to buy 15x6" rims which mostly don't exist doesn't really help them much.

[Knestis]

Sorry, Bill - my 'splaining wasn't too good.

The idea in my head was that I feel like the 13" tire is destined to go the way of the 13" wheel as the enTIRE industry (he-he) gets more and more oriented on larger diameters, regardless of what SCCA does.

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Jake:
Back to the proposal. What to do about width? I'd really like width open if it fits. Unfortuntaly, this could obsolete ITB and ITC wheel inventories because wheel width IS an advantage. However, if we accept that 13" and 14" race tires are beginning to die and don't allow the B and C guys wider widths - allowing them to buy 15x6" rims which mostly don't exist doesn't really help them much.

Despite the fact that opening up widths (as long as they fit under the fender/flare would help me, I'd personally like to see a 7" limit across the board. But, I'm certainly open to what the membership would prefer.


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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis:
The idea in my head was that I feel like the 13" tire is destined to go the way of the 13" wheel as the enTIRE industry (he-he) gets more and more oriented on larger diameters, regardless of what SCCA does.

K

Thanks Kirk... EXACTLY...!



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

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

I don't doubt that the 13" DOT race tires will probably go away. The question is, how soon that happens. I see opening up wheels diameters as potentially accelerating that.

Jake,

I understand what you're saying about gearing, but I contend that it's cheaper (and probably more practical) to swap trannys w/ different R&P ratios. Think about how many wheels/tires you currently take to the track for a weekend (not counting wets). I'd say it's fair to assume that it's at least 6, maybe 8. Even at $100/wheel and $125/tire (probably low), you're looking at $1350 just for one different gear ratio. Not to mention the logistics of storing all of those wheels/tires.

I think the implementation of an open wheel rule would be a textbook example of rules creep.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Kirk,


I think the implementation of an open wheel rule would be a textbook example of rules creep.

I beg to differ.

I think that calling this "rules creep" is just simplifying it with a popular buzzword. I see this as "adaptation", and only those that can adapt can survive.

I think, that in some cases, there are performance advantages, but not too many cars can support a two inch reduction in wheel diameter without running afoul of calipers and tie roads, etc.

And how many ITC or ITB (Or heck, even, my 105hp ITA car) can support taller gearing, and actually see laptime benifits. I would like to see back to back testing, and again, those cases are rare.

As for me. I'm sticking with my 13s, and hoping they support them for a long time, but I know the end is coming.

Now....widths must stay as is. Period.


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

[Jake]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake,

I contend that it's cheaper (and probably more practical) to swap trannys w/ different R&P ratios....

I think the implementation of an open wheel rule would be a textbook example of rules creep.

Bill, you succesfully agrued against yourself. How can it be rules creep if it only enables you to do something that is already legal (changing the final drive ratio) in (as you put it) "a cheaper and more practical" way?

For the record: I carry 5 tires and changing my final drive in the tranny costs at least $1500 in custom cut gears, not to mention that changing the trans is a full day job. For me, changing wheels is a bit more practical.

[Geo]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Now....widths must stay as is. Period.

Well, I would at least argue for a single max width. This would facilitate moving cars between classes where there are currently two different maximum widths.


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

[Bill Miller]

Jake (mot Gulick),

First off, please re-read my post. I said that changing the gearing w/ the R&P is the cheaper and more practical way. Second, it's rules creep as it, as both Darin and Jake (Gulick) state, there is some performance advantage. Also, that's pretty much what rules creep is, you get something changed for one reason, but there's a performance benefit to be gained by changing, so you up the ante for everyone.

And, as others have argued, if it costs you $1500 for a custom R&P, maybe you picked the wrong car. I can get 4 different R&P ratios for a VW (3.67, 3.89, 3.94, 4.23) for <$400 each. These are factory VW ratios. And actually, you can get used versions of the fist three ratios for usually between $50 and $100, as they're fairly common.

George,

'facilitate moving a car between classes w/ different widths'??? Just how often do you envision moving a car between classes? If your car gets moved from ITA to ITB (7" to 6" max), sell your old wheels to a fellow ITA racer. If you're going the other way, sell your old wheels to a fellow ITB racer.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake (mot Gulick),

...... If your car gets moved from ITA to ITB (7" to 6" max), sell your old wheels to a fellow ITA racer. If you're going the other way, sell your old wheels to a fellow ITB racer.

What...a fellow ITA racer who has decided to keep his RX-7 in A and not move to B?? Just for giggles, are there any other cars that anyone can think of that use 13 x 7 RX-7 offset and bolt spacing wheels??

Oh, that's right...my fault for choosing the wrong car. seemed like the right car at the time....

Look, I know that I'm not going to B, but there would be problems with moving cars between classes. And that is a fly in the ointment, I bet, as far as the ITAC and the CB are concerned. On one hand, it would be easy to do a re-org if we all ran on the same rim width, but if we were to change rim width, the competitive balance will be destroyed, all the C and B guys will have to go buy sets of wheels, and it will just suck all around.

IF cars get moved down I think the solution is to line item them in the classifications with the max allowable width, with a note in the class by class rules, that allows the A to B cars to retain their width. It's likely that weight changes will be considered and often made to cars moving down class, but changing rim width will make the adjustments even more difficult to get right.



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

[Bill Miller]

Just for giggles, are there any other cars that anyone can think of that use 13 x 7 RX-7 offset and bolt spacing wheels??

What about the guys running 1st gen. RX7's in EP? Or possibly guys running SRX7, Pro7, or IT7?

As far as weight adjustments for cars that move classes, I don't recall the Accord getting a weight break when it went from ITB to ITA, and I didn't see anything about the A3 Golf having to add weight for next year when it moves down to ITB.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
As far as weight adjustments for cars that move classes, I don't recall the Accord getting a weight break when it went from ITB to ITA, and I didn't see anything about the A3 Golf having to add weight for next year when it moves down to ITB.

That's because as the rules exist today, there is absolutely no provision for it. PCAs will certainly provide for it.


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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Geo:
That's because as the rules exist today, there is absolutely no provision for it.

Actually George... that's NOT true.

I've been researching the current rules on classfications in IT and have found the following:

GCR 17.1.11. Change of Specifications -
Specifications on cars classified for the first time, or reclassified, may be changed on thirty (30) day's notice during the first year of competition if the advanced estimates of performance are grossly inaccurate.

So basically the option is open for the first year after the reclassification, according to the GCR...


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

[Jake]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake (mot Gulick),
... as both Darin and Jake (Gulick) state, there is some performance advantage...

....And, as others have argued, if it costs you $1500 for a custom R&P, maybe you picked the wrong car....

...your car gets moved from ITA to ITB (7" to 6" max), sell your old wheels to a fellow ITA racer....

First, there is no performance benefit other than the gearing which is already legal to do. It's almost comical that you site Darin's opinion as fact in THIS thread.

And yes, you're right. I did pick the wrong car.

Selling your wheels is no problem now? How about this: If you don't want to run 13's anymore you can sell them to a cone chaser running in SP. If you aren't aware, 13x7's are in high demand for autocrossers.

[Jake]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
IF cars get moved down I think the solution is to line item them in the classifications with the max allowable width, with a note in the class by class rules, that allows the A to B cars to retain their width. It's likely that weight changes will be considered and often made to cars moving down class, but changing rim width will make the adjustments even more difficult to get right.

Excellent idea. That seems to be the least disruptive solution.

[Bill Miller]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">First, there is no performance benefit other than the gearing which is already legal to do</font>

Cool, who ran the test and where was it published?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Jake]

Oops - sorry. I meant:

[opinion]There is no performance benefit...[/opinion]

205/50ZR14 vs. 205/50ZR15 - I honestly don't THINK there is a difference in cornering ability. There's no reason why there should be. The contact patch is the same. The surface area will be the same. The normal force is the same. It's physics my doubtful friend!