14"-15" wheel size rule

[Jake]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Why would you "already have 13 x 7's" if you think there is no performance advantage?

Ok - I should have clarified - no perf adv other than the gear change which is already legal. If someone would make a 205/45ZR14, It wouldn't really make any difference. (Hoosier, are you listening?)

[Jake]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
...not to require people to have 30 different permutations of wheels, tires, etc for every track.

How is this any different than whay we have today? I can have different gear ratios for each track. Wheel diameter, just makes it a cheaper way for some people.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
If you want to run a 1" deep spoiler, won't you also have to run 1" higher ride height?

Nope. The bottom edge of the spoiler is controlled by the rule that states (I paraphrase) that nothing shall be lower than the lowest part of the wheel rims.

If someone goes from 205/60-13 tires to 205/50-15 tires, their tire diameter does not change but the lowest part of the wheel is now 1" lower than before. By the rules, that person can now extend their spoiler 1" lower than before without changing ride height...(that effect is 1/2" if going from 205/55-14 to 205/50-15.) It's solely because of this that we are seriously considering selling a perfectly good set of 14" Borbet wheels in order to buy 15 inchers, which will increase our costs both in wheels and in tires...

Like I said, guys: unintended consequences. The original intention may have been to reduce costs, but (in my case) a result is that it will increase costs... - GA

(P.S. - I like and agree with the rule, please don't allow me to mis-imply, but I do think you should just let it ride as-is and congrat yourself for a job well done. - GA)

[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited January 28, 2005).]

[ITSRX7]

As Geo stated, the intent of teh rule change was to give racers more options in a shrinking availabilty landscape WITHOUT adding the NEED to upgrade due to a performance increase.

While going down a size may produce a cheap gear ratio change, it is something that would be done through the addition of wheels that are limited in thier availablity - exactly what we are wanted to get away from. Besides, there is already a rule that alows for this modification.

And if only SOME cars can go down due to brake sizes, then it isn't fair for all and isn't my idea of the right reason to make a rule change.

Bill, I never said a reason we changed the rule was to allow for cheap gear changes (we never intended a downward move). I simply responded to a question that asked why anyone would want to go down a size - even though the wheels costs could make it a wash.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited January 28, 2005).]

[Bill Miller]

See Greg, I told you it was early!

Andy,

I never meant to imply that you made the change to the wheel rule to allow for any kind of gearing change. I was simply pointing out that it was probably far from 'cheap', and that if it were cheap (i.e. wheels were cheap and available), then there was probably no need for the change. Also, I fail to see how there would be a 'need' to upgrade.

As far as it not being fair for some, because they might not be able to go down because of brake fitment problems, then the whole rule isn't fair. You've given the folks w/ 13's the option of going to 14's and 15's. That gives them the ability to play w/ gearing more so than those folks w/ 14's or 15's. BTW, I think the gearing thing is a red herring anyway, cheaper to buy multiple trannies w/ different R&P ratios.

Regarding the "there's already a rule in place" comment, I go back to my earlier statement about shocks. If you're going to use the arguement that there was already a rule in place to allow for something, then the shock rule should have never been changed.

George,

How does allowing people to go down in size 'defeat the purpose of the rule'? I thought the purpose of the rule was to give people a lower cost alternative. Are you going to require the people that can currently run 13's to move up?


Point is, this is being blown way out of proportion. Spend time working on important issues, rathter than something that will sort itself out.

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Point is, this is being blown way out of proportion. Spend time working on important issues, rathter than something that will sort itself out.

I think in the end this will take very little time. Issue a clarification that you can't go down through Fastrack and it's done.


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

[Daryl DeArman]

If your tires are already 45 series 15's, you can't go with much of a shorter tire.
Going to a 13" would allow you a shorter tire/wheel combo. Wheels do play a factor in overall tire diameter.

Given the same shape and materials the smaller diameter wheel/tire not only weighs less, but has a lower momment of inertia. It will accelerate faster and decelerate faster. The smaller diameter wheel will also allow some cars to run at minimum ride height without screwy alignment curves.

If wheel diameter were open, I'd run the smallest diameter wheel that I could still gear for. Provided it still allowed adequate brake clearance/cooling.

And they still do make 10" racing tires. I was at the test/tune day today for the VARA race this weekend. Saw a couple of Mini's with fresh looking rubber. Yokohama's I believe, maybe AVON's?

[joeg]

And they still do make 10" racing tires. I was at the test/tune day today for the VARA race this weekend. Saw a couple of Mini's with fresh looking rubber. Yokohama's I
believe, maybe AVON's?[/B][/QUOTE]

Good D.O.T race tires in 10?

Don't think so (racing tires for sure; IT tires, doubt it)

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Geo:
I think in the end this will take very little time. Issue a clarification that you can't go down through Fastrack and it's done.

George,

Why not put it out for member input and see what the racing community would like to see?



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

[gran racing]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Spend time working on important issues, rathter than something that will sort itself out.</font>

Not trying to be a jerk but I thought you just wanted to be done with this one?

It all comes down to the intention of the rule. From my understanding it to allow people using 13" and 14" wheels the flexibilty to utilize other size rims (an increase in size) that are in greater supply. Yeah I know, they need to amend the wording to get rid of the loop holes for it to meet this intent.

I have mixed emotions about fully opening the wheel diameter rule as a person using 13" rims.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[Joe Craven]

My car has 13" and I now have 2 sets of 14" and looking to pick up a set of 15" wheels. It gives me more selection of tires and I love the flexibility. All IT cars should have the option of choosing the size they want to run.

There are cheap options for 13, 14, 15 inch wheels. Diamond and other will make the wheels to the width and offset and bolt pattern one wants at an economical cost.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by gran racing:
Not trying to be a jerk but I thought you just wanted to be done with this one?

Dave,

Was that directed at me? If so, I'm not sure I get what you're trying to say. I wanted to be done w/ what, the wheel issue?



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

[Banzai240]

Guys... last time I checked... "up to" did not mean "down to"...

Your spec line allowance is STILL the place at which this rule BEGINS it's effect... The "orgin", or zero point, if you will...

If someone tells you you could get up to 5 years in prison for a crime, that doesn't mean you'll get out of jail LAST week if you commit it...

If you could spend up to $100.00 on an item, that doesn't mean that someone is going to give you $50.00 to take that item...

If you start at your spec line allowanace, say 14, does the term "up to 15" not mean simply the set [14,15]??

If you start at 15"... HOW can you possibly claim that fitting a 13" wheel is "up to 15"???

Simply stated... UP does NOT mean DOWN...

You guys are out of your minds if you need more clarrification to understand this simple and concise rule...

I imagine we'll go ahead and do it, however...


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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 31, 2005).]

[ITANorm]

Darin -

I asked the specific question of the CRB Saturday - and got a non-answer. I understand the intent, but "up to" means "less than or equal to" - period. By that logic, we'd all have to run the largest everything allowed in the GCR.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by ITANorm:
Darin -

I asked the specific question of the CRB Saturday - and got a non-answer. I understand the intent, but "up to" means "less than or equal to" - period. By that logic, we'd all have to run the largest everything allowed in the GCR.

I don't disagree... BUT less than or equal to WHAT, and from WHAT starting point...???

If you are starting with a 13" wheel, and are allowed to fit "up to" a 15" wheel... there is still no allowance to go to a 12" wheel... it's 13" UP TO 15", not ZERO up to 15"...

I knew I've stayed away from this board for a reason... what's the point???

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

[Greg Amy]

Sorry, Darin my boy, I'm with Normie: your logic is flawed within commonly-accepted language, clouded by your preconceptions of what you intended to mean when you wrote that. Plain and simple, the IT regs, as they are published today, allows any wheel diameter to a maximum of 15" diameter.

Using your logic, and comparing this length measurement to time, the minimum amount of jail time someone can serve is zero years, and in your example the maximum is 5 years. If I'm sentenced to "up to 5 years" in jail that means I get zero to five. In IT, if I can run "up to 15 inch" diameter wheels that means I can use anything from zero to 15.

Comparing this length measurement to your currency example, the minimum amount of money I could spend is zero, the maximum $100. Just as that item could cost me "up to $100" - which means within a range of $0 to $100 - I can use "up to 15 inch" diameter wheels - which means within a range of zero to 15 inches.

Your judgement is clouded by the base premise that there's a starting point. There isn't. No where in the rules does it now state that the listing on the car's line has any bearing on the allowable wheel diameter. In fact, as the rules read now that listed wheel diameter value is pointless and takes up needless space and ink in the book. It is only YOU (collective "you") that have a base preconception about what the rule *should* be that think of that as a baseline, but only if you read the rules as they are written, not as you preconceive them to be can you see why it is fully legal for someone to run any wheel size they wish, as long as the don't go any larger in diameter than 15 inches and no wider than 6" or 7", depending on class.

Sorry, man, but that's just the way it is. And for you to insult the intelligence of the folks on this board for calling you on it ("You guys are out of your minds if you need more clarrification...") is unproductive and does nothing for your brownie point count...

If you intent it to be otherwise, ya better get on the stick and get a correction printed pronto, 'cause once this goes through an appeal (if anyone even bothers to protest it) the horse is way outside the barn... GA

[Joe Harlan]

Hahaha....Darin, You may as well just figure that there are some guys that will bitch that it costs money and then stretch every comma into a thousand dollar upgrade..

I would take "up to" to mean what ever the factory wheel size was could be upgraded "up to" the allowed wheel size. I would also say that if a car never came with the down to size then it is a stretch to think you could do it.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
Using your logic, and comparing this length measurement to time, the minimum amount of jail time someone can serve is zero years, and in your example the maximum is 5 years. If I'm sentenced to "up to 5 years" in jail that means I get zero to five. In IT, if I can run "up to 15 inch" diameter wheels that means I can use anything from zero to 15.

BS... In the example, we started with ZERO to 5 years of jail time... In the IT example, we are starting with 13" or 14" wheels... It's your presumption that get to start with ZERO diameter that is flawed... We start with what is specified...

Comparing this length measurement to your currency example, the minimum amount of money I could spend is zero, the maximum $100. Just as that item could cost me "up to $100" - which means within a range of $0 to $100 - I can use "up to 15 inch" diameter wheels - which means within a range of zero to 15 inches.

BS again... see above...

Your judgement is clouded by the base premise that there's a starting point. There isn't.

I'll make a note of that.... "Note to self: Spec line is no longer valid, according the IT.com as the numbers on the spec lines resembling 13's and 14's now are really ZEROs..."

[list]You figure it out...
[list]

My perception is just fine... no clouding here... I definately don't agree with you, but that doesn't mean I'm not seeing things as clearly as ever...

But do as you will...

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And for you to insult the intelligence of the folks on this board for calling you on it (\"You guys are out of your minds if you need more clarrification...\") is unproductive and does nothing for your brownie point count...</font>

"unproductive"... Yah, that about describes this...

As for earning "brownie points"....


(PS: OK, so I responded one more time... so much for good intentions... )

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



[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 31, 2005).]

[Banzai240]

I just sent an e-mail to the rest of the ITAC, Kurt Weiss, and Bob Dowie (our CRB Liason) suggesting the following wording be added to this rule (Credit Andy with the wording...):

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">\"Cars may not fit smaller diameter wheels than specified on their spec line.\"</font>

I assume that would make it clear enough for everyone???

Being our track record with getting changes/corrections done is what it is, I wouldn't be planning on going down in diameter anytime soon... lest you fall victim to "intent clarrification"...

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 31, 2005).]

[ITANorm]

Would it be too much to ask to just state the rule "cars originally fitted with 13" or 14" wheels MAY install 15" wheels" (or "larger than stock, up to 15" maximum", or whatever)? It would be a simple end to all this discussion.

It will also solve my dilemma as a Steward when (not if) I get an RFA on this - and save you from having to just do it anyway when you get an edict from the CoA directing you to clarify it.

Also, realistically, I never thought we could put skateboard wheels on the cars. The given dataset refers to 13" - 15".

<edit> Simultaneous posts. Your solution will work, too, if you intended for 13" cars to be able to fit 14"'s also. </edit>

[This message has been edited by ITANorm (edited January 31, 2005).]