October Fastrack

[rlward]

I kind of get a kick out of Roger's response. No matter what change is made, it will create a problem for somebody.

K
[/b]

The points are: Did a shelby driver request the change? Why is the process so secretive?
Why so late in the season? Where was the discussion? If the board had done their homework, I think all the drivers would have been polled, no one contacted me. We already have spec miata, what are we going to have now, ITmAiata? Reduction in weight would have been a better choice.
RW

[1stGenBoy]

The points are: Did a shelby driver request the change?

Yup, sure did

Why is the process so secretive?

??? It was published in Sportscar, more than once and on this site.

Why so late in the season?

Letters written in May/June, discussed by the ITAC at their next meeting, Tabled for more information and review. Sent to the CRB then to the BOD. This does not happen in 30 days more like 3-4 months.

Where was the discussion?

What discussion? A letter was recieved from a competitor and reviewed and acted upon.

If the board had done their homework, I think all the drivers would have been polled, no one contacted me.

It was in Fastrack for member comment

We already have spec miata, what are we going to have now, ITmAiata? Reduction in weight would have been a better choice.
RW

You can write a letter to the CRB and ITAC asking for a review of this. Unless you contact them nothing will happen.
[/b]

[JamesB]

In MARRS alone we have the following OVER 2400#.

Alfa Romeo GTV - 2520
Dodge Daytona - 2630!
Toyota FX14 - 2445
Volvo 142 - 2640!!
Volvo 242 - 2780!!!




And

Plymoth Fire arrow is close at 2360


So the shelby at 2430 I just cannot see how you can even attempt to justfy the need for 7" wide wheels based on safety for running that weight.

However, all the retuning to go to a 6" wide wheel that Matt Rowe has pointed out will be required and as much as it stinks, I dont think your going to loose too much lap time once you readjust the cars suspension.

[Dave Ebersole]

In MARRS alone we have the following OVER 2400#.

Alfa Romeo GTV - 2520
Dodge Daytona - 2630!
Toyota FX14 - 2445
Volvo 142 - 2640!!
Volvo 242 - 2780!!!
And

Plymoth Fire arrow is close at 2360
So the shelby at 2430 I just cannot see how you can even attempt to justfy the need for 7" wide wheels based on safety for running that weight.

However, all the retuning to go to a 6" wide wheel that Matt Rowe has pointed out will be required and as much as it stinks, I dont think your going to loose too much lap time once you readjust the cars suspension.
[/b]

The poor Alfa and Volvo were QUITE successful in ITB in MARRS this season too.

[JamesB]

Tell me about it dave. Here I am celebrating getting my 'light' 2280# VW finally down into the low 34's and high 33's (consistently.) Still have a few seconds to find to the front of the pack. And stop qualifying behind the ITC leaders so I don't watch you eventually dissapear since trying to pass the 4 of them was NOT an option though I had one chance when they all blocked each other to attempt to squeeze through but decided id rather just video them and stick to their tails and learn a trick or 5.

[jjjanos]

I'm soooo confused....

Are the 6 inch racing rims scarce or not?

What is the basis for the class-specific limitation on rim width? i.e. We've got a car that was ITA using 7 inch rims who is now required to puchase 6 inch rims to go racing. Why wasn't 9.1.3.D.7.a.6 changed to read "Maximum allowable rim widths: ITR - 8.5 inches, classes ITS and ITA - seven (7) inches; classes ITB and ITC - six (6) inches except as modified on a cars spec line.

If there is concern about the extra performance this former ITA car will have, then add weight to the bloody thing to negate that performance advantage.

Please show me the carved tablets that proclaim "Thou shalt not suffer rims wider than 6 inches in ITB for it is an abomination before the Racing Gods."

[Knestis]

...because there is value to NOT changing things unless they really need to be changed - unless there is a compelling argument to do so, for the good of the category.

And, I keep referring to competition adjustments (bleah) but it's because there are a lot of dimensions or attributes to that practice, as it's played out in Production classes, for example. One of the fundamental tenets of IT is that we don't have a bunch of make/model-specific specifications, which is the logical product - and a condition that enables - drivers to petition for individual help for their cars.

K

[Greg Krom]

Shouldn't the Omni GLH be moved to ITB at the same time as the Shelby Charger? I can't think of any differences between the two vehicles that would justify separate classing.

[BlueStreak]

Shouldn't the Omni GLH be moved to ITB at the same time as the Shelby Charger? I can't think of any differences between the two vehicles that would justify separate classing.
[/b]

Having owned and raced turbo versions of both (many years ago), I would say the Omni would have to move to ITB lighter than the Charger due to the Charger's slight aero advantage.

That said, you're not going to see a bunch of either of these, they are harder to find these days than Rabbits!

[Matt Rowe]

So the shelby at 2430 I just cannot see how you can even attempt to justfy the need for 7" wide wheels based on safety for running that weight.

However, all the retuning to go to a 6" wide wheel that Matt Rowe has pointed out will be required and as much as it stinks, I dont think your going to loose too much lap time once you readjust the cars suspension.
[/b]

Give me some credit James, I never once brought up safety. That would be a red herring.

I just said it's going to be harder on the tires even at the same weight and will require more than just the cost of a new set of wheels to get it optimized. There is significant effort in retuning the car and while the net effect will be small until that retuning gets done the car won't be all that it can be. So from my perspective this change sucks, I would have rather stayed in ITA with a weight reduction to fit the process.

Matt - FWIW, I can pretty much assure you that none of your fellow MARRS drivers are going to give a s&!t what size rims you're using. When you get to the ARRC...well, then you can worry. And I just hope the next car you're thinking about is an A car - we would really hate to loose you to the dark side
[/b]

Don't worry Earl, I honestly can't imagine a better class to be in right now than ITA (at least on the east coast) which is why I already have another car picked out. The major work will start in November. That gives me all of this month to plan the bank robbery to finance it.

[gran racing]

There is significant effort in retuning the car and while the net effect will be small until that retuning gets done the car won't be all that it can be. [/b]

Matt, this is going to come off more harsh over the net than it would over a couple of beers. People who say that it's going to take retuning, different spring rates, give me a break. Tune all you want in the higher class and the car still is uncompetitve. If you do think this type of tuning is absolutely necessary, it shouldn't be a problem because you already have numerous spring rates since you need to change these from track to track using that theory. In the new class, having a rim 1" narrower is not going to be the cause of that particular driver not running up front in Club Racing.

That's it! I'm changing my signature. :P

[tom91ita]

i go back and forth from 7" rims to 6" rims for Honda Challenge and SCCA and the only adjustment is for the "Driven to Conform" Toy Tires used in HC.

[Matt Rowe]

Matt, this is going to come off more harsh over the net than it would over a couple of beers. People who say that it's going to take retuning, different spring rates, give me a break. Tune all you want in the higher class and the car still is uncompetitve. If you do think this type of tuning is absolutely necessary, it shouldn't be a problem because you already have numerous spring rates since you need to change these from track to track using that theory. In the new class, having a rim 1" narrower is not going to be the cause of that particular driver not running up front in Club Racing.

That's it! I'm changing my signature. :P
[/b]

You're right Dave that does sound awfully harsh. Good thing I never listen to anything you say!

(That was a joke also. :P )

Don't get me wrong, we are talking about small margins, but we also tell people that only have .020" over pistons and not .040" that they haven't fully developed their car. If the car isn't winning in ITB no one is going to have any sympathy for someone that hasn't changed their setup after changing wheel sizes. So now we are back to test days, part swapping, and so on. That's more than just the cost of a set of wheels.

Maybe I'm just sensitive because a couple of years ago I got told to live with it because there wasn't enough interest in my car to spend the time running it through the process. And my car certainly wasn't the only one skipped over so at the time I said this was going to create ill will and inconvience people later. Now I'm being told to live with it, stop complaining and be thankful it was finally looked at. Meanwhile the MR2's and RX-7's have been given endless debate and get to stay in ITA at a (unattainablly?) low weight because some of them have requested that option. It begs the question why them and not this car?

[Knestis]

... a couple of years ago I got told to live with it because there wasn't enough interest in my car to spend the time running it through the process. And my car certainly wasn't the only one skipped over so at the time I said this was going to create ill will and inconvience people later. ...[/b]

I'm not entirely confident that's exactly how it went down. I'm a critical as the next guy - more so maybe, if you ask Andy and the others - when I think the ITAC is being inconsistent but I think it might be more a case of dealing with the more immediately wrong listings first. They have a limited amount of time and resources to put into the decisions they have to make, and when the process was new (the Great Realignment) there were some really huge mistakes that needed to be rectified first - both in terms of the size of the miss and/or the number of drivers impacted. It was ALWAYS explained clearly, I think, that they would revisit those that were potentially still not right but were closer, if and when requests came in. One did, they did, and here we are.

...Meanwhile the MR2's and RX-7's have been given endless debate and get to stay in ITA at a (unattainablly?) low weight because some of them have requested that option. It begs the question why them and not this car?[/b]

I'm going to bet it's because they ran the numbers and the Shelby's not as close an issue as is the MR2. And/or they don't have the minimum weight cage tube rule to cope with.

K

[Bill Miller]

110hp, FWD and struts. That ain't no ITA car. Come on.
[/b]

Andy,

You could make the same case that 90hp, FWD, and struts is no ITB car!

[jjjanos]

...because there is value to NOT changing things unless they really need to be changed - unless there is a compelling argument to do so, for the good of the category.[/b]

Then the basis of your objection already has been undermined as I doubt a convincing case could be made that moving this car from ITA to ITB is for the good of the category.

If, however, one accepts moving this car is for the good of the category since it will preserve the existing cars as entrants and may cause additional cars of this type to be built, the case for allowing the larger rims in this instance is strengthed. Moving the car w/o adjusting rim sizes undercuts the first reason for moving the car, i.e. preserving current entrants/cars.

One of the fundamental tenets of IT is that we don't have a bunch of make/model-specific specifications, which is the logical product - and a condition that enables - drivers to petition for individual help for their cars.[/b]

However, we already have at least one make/model-specific specification which is entirely competition based - minimum weight. Presumably the CB does not apply the Circumcision Rule in setting minimum weight - 10% of the top for a V6, 5% of the top for warp-drive, 5.5% of the top for jet-pack,....... but adjusts it based on an attempt to level competition.

Simply moving this car is a competition adjustment. So, since we've already decided to lose our virginity, shouldn't we jump in with both heels up and enjoy it?

Let people ask for rim size adjustments when their cars aren't being moved - the CB can continue to tell them to sod off.

[Knestis]

...we already have at least one make/model-specific specification which is entirely competition based - minimum weight. [/b]

Indeed. And that should be THE make/model-specific spec. I'd differ with the assumption that it's "competition-based" (suggesting it is based on competitiveness. It is adjusted in anticipation of maintaining a certain level of competitiveness but the point at which we do things the other way 'round, we're truly in it up to our heels.

Simply moving this car is a competition adjustment. [/b]

Mostly wrong. This action lacks some important substantive attributes of competition adjustments (bleah) as they get played out in other categories, and that we should try very hard to avoid in IT.

And I have to believe that any attempt to make listings more consistent - within and among IT classes - is good for the health of the category as a whole.

K

[jjjanos]

Simply moving this car is a competition adjustment. So, since we've already decided to lose our virginity, shouldn't we jump in with both heels up and enjoy it?[/b]

Mostly wrong. This action lacks some important substantive attributes of competition adjustments (bleah) as they get played out in other categories, and that we should try very hard to avoid in IT.[/b]

Oh no! We've already determined the lady is for hire. At this point, all we are doing is haggling over price and whether she'll throw in a Hong Kong Hiccup on the house.

1. Every classification of a car involves a competition adjustment, otherwise the minimum weight we would have to run would be the curb weight. Case in point - first generation CRX in ITC: 1955 lbs. CRX Si in ITB: 2130. (difference: 175lbs) Curb weight Dx/HF: 1819lb Si: 1890lb. (Source). No adjustments would suggest that the difference in weight - 71lbs - should be maintained in the minimum weights. Either the C car should weigh 2059lbs or the B car should weigh 2026lbs. Ergo, the minimum weights are competition adjustments.

2. Changing a class for a model is an admission that the original classification was wrong and is done entirely for competition adjustment reasons. I.e. that '85 CRX Dx really isn't an ITS car. It needs to go somewhere else.

3. Changing weights, either in isolation or in conjunction with moving the car's class is an EVEN bigger competition adjustment.

4. I see nothing inconsistent with class philosophy with relaxing the strict prohibitions of 9.1.3.D.7.a.6.

5. In fact, 9.1.3.D.7.a.6 is, itself, a violation of the IT class philosophy. It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car. Any change from stock rim size should be prohibited unless a case can be made that running the stock rim size is unsafe and if this is indeed the case, the stock rim size itself should be prohibited as being unsafe for competition. We have CRB members participating here - what is the justification for 9.1.3.D.7.a.6? Why cannot I use any rim size I wish that fits on my car provided that the tires do not extend beyond the horizontal plane of my fenders?

And I have to believe that any attempt to make listings more consistent - within and among IT classes - is good for the health of the category as a whole.
[/b]

It is unclear what you mean by consistent within and among IT classes. As it stands now, 9.1.3.D.7.a.6 simply is a means of reducing redundancy on the specification line. In its absence, the NOTES: column would simply repeat - maximum rim width 6", maximum rim width 6", maximum rim width 6".....

Simply changing one of those implied restrictions to maximum rim width 7" (particularly because the people who have been running that car already HAVE those rims) is not an inconsistency.

I have yet to hear a valid reason why forcing these drivers to purchase new wheels is good for IT. I have yet to hear a valid reason why letting these drivers use their current wheels is bad for IT.

I recognize the nose-of-the-camel argument and I reject it. The fact that this car has moved classes and had its weight adjusted already means that, not only is the nose in the tent, the entire head is too.

[AntonioGG]

Is it 14X6 in 5X100 pattern you guys are looking for?

How's 12lbs for $90 sound? Good for 5X114.3 too.

http://www.nlmotoring.com/motegi-rt5-silve...26bba8234b1a09d

[ScotMac]

Is it 14X6 in 5X100 pattern you guys are looking for?

How's 12lbs for $90 sound? Good for 5X114.3 too.

http://www.nlmotoring.com/motegi-rt5-silve...26bba8234b1a09d
[/b]

That is old stock that they just haven't removed from their website. Try purchasing it, or call American Racing/Motegi, and you will find it is not made anymore. I did a very thorough search, and found exactly one source below 12lbs and below $400. That is unacceptable.

You can see in this thread where i discuss exactly those wheels, and their lack of availability:

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...12532&hl=motegi