October Fastrack

[Knestis]

(Moderator note: this conversation may seem to start disjointed; posts were moved from a rules discussion topic to this one, to isolate the debate on wider wheels...Ed.)[/b]

Hey, Ed. I have major concerns about this kind of move setting a precedent.

This community has always been pretty good at policing its own, leaving the moderators to the mundane task of deleting bot posts about Paris Hilton's private parts, etc. If we get in the business of trying to manage topics by moving posts, the threads where they came from get muddled, there's no way to follow arguments and counter-arguments, and we are one HUGE step toward policing thought.

Just one guy's concerns.

K

[mom'sZ]

Yeah Bill, For sure. My car uses a 4 x 114.3 bolt pattern. Even being an ITS car, thus being able to use the 15 x 7 wheels, I can only find Volks, Montegi, and Koseis in the price range of $250 - $450 a piece. How about 2 grand for a set of wheels
Paying for them is one thing, getting them in the house without momma finding out what they cost is another

[ScotMac]

Is someone deleting posts in this thread? Or is there a problem w/ the software? It is missing my posts to the thread for the last two days!

In fact, i have browser tab up w/ a page that clearly shows *3* of the posts, which are not visible if i bring this thread up in a new tab or window. But that is not all the missing messages.

Is there some type of forum moderation (censoring) going on? And if so, why?

[gran racing]

Yeah, someone broke our wheel size discussion off into a seperate thread. It confused the heck out of me too! Hopefully we'll just leave the threads alone in the future for situations like this or create a new thread w/o cutting stuff away from the existing one.

[Knestis]

...Is there some type of forum moderation (censoring) going on? And if so, why? [/b]

Yes - a moderator took it upon him/herself to start a spin-off topic at...

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...topic=13062&hl=

I've voiced my opinion that this is a bad idea there and will reiterate here. We do NOT need suggestions that someone is manipulating the content of discussions here, or even the tone unless it gets really horrible.

K

[Greg Amy]

We do NOT need suggestions that someone is manipulating the content of discussions here, or even the tone unless it gets really horrible.[/b]

It was not "manipulated", nor censored; nothing was edited or deleted. And, the tone WAS getting very horrible (and in many ways, personal). Still is.

I did this spin-off; I'll put it back given it's getting titties in such a major twistie. I believed, spurred on by a couple of private - and one public - comment about closing the topic, that a "technical" discussion in regards to the performance advantages - or not - of wider wheels was better served in a "Technical" forum than buried in the Rules and Regs forum in a discussion about the latest October Fastrack.

But, it's back home now. Enjoy. - GA

[Knestis]

Sorry, Greg - I wasn't suggesting that any content HAD been manipulated. I'm was simply worried that someone could SUGGEST that this was the case, or feel like they'd been diddled.

K

[planet6racing]

Alright, I'll stop being a prick. Absolute statements just get me going. It's just my line of work. I'm sorry...

For pennance I'll go put together a test plan for testing 43 different spherical bearings...

[ScotMac]

Yes - a moderator took it upon him/herself to start a spin-off topic at...

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...topic=13062&hl=

I've voiced my opinion that this is a bad idea there and will reiterate here. We do NOT need suggestions that someone is manipulating the content of discussions here, or even the tone unless it gets really horrible.

K
[/b]

Right. In fact, there was only really 2 things being discussed (lately), ecu and wheels, and i don't think it was difficult to parse between the two. Also, he has moved some of my messages, w/ out moving the messages i was replying to. So, it makes it appear that the opposing points made are undisputed. Not good.

But, it's back home now. Enjoy. - GA
[/b]

Thanks Greg. I understand your point, but believe that "at this point" it is best left here.

[ScotMac]

No. Your supposition is that sidewall angle will define the performance of the wheel/tire combo. You've done calculations to show that there is a difference in sidewall angle between the two wheel widths and, therefore, there will be a performance difference. This is a calculation used to support your "hypothesis."
[/b]

As i said before, i never said (nor meant to imply) that my calculations are a study of the performance impact of sidewall. I did the calculations to "see what we are talking about here". ie, get an idea what the difference is, in order to evaluate it. In the absence of a such a study, it is useful to fully quantify what we are talking about here, to get an idea what that study *might* find.

The "ideal" rim size is not that -- it's the rim size that the industry says should be used to measure the tire. The recommended range *is* what it says, but you are using measurement numbers that are on a wheel size that Hoosier doesn't pick.

Quoting the Hoosier website:

"Why are the listed rim dimensions different than the recommendations?

Whenever a D.O.T. tire spec is published there are Tire & Rim Association guidelines for the specific rim size for a particular tire. This is intended to standardize the information so that it is possible to compare one brand of tire to another.

For performance uses these Tire & Rim Association recommendations may not reflect a best choice or the designed application."
[/b]

Sorry, but i don't believe that is true. Hoosier very clearly differentiates the "measured rim" from the "recommended rim". And they explain that they are different, because the industry requires the "measured rim" to be a *particular* size, for comparison purposes. However, the "recommended rim's" are all Hoosier.

Oh, i see the misunderstanding. Do you believe that made my statements about "ideal" based on the "measured rim"? That is not true, at all. Gary, brought up the concept of "ideal", and i just answered him based on Hoosier's "recommended rim" sizes. ie, i assumed (logically) that the "ideal" would be the middle of the recommended rim sizes.

[mom'sZ]

Mom,
It may be a few, obscure cars today, but what happens if (when?) the 1st gen RX7 gets moved to ITB? If the opponents of the '7" wheels for everybody' option feel that it would make cars instantly way faster, why not go w/ the additional weight if you want to run them?
[/b]

Well, I'm not really an opponent of 7" wheels for everyone. It's kind of like the ECU rule though, if we go back to stock with flash/chip, all the guys that have a motec in a box get screwed. (I know, I know... tough luck) Well what about all the folks in B and C who have laid down big bucks for super lightwieght 6" rims? I personally think a weight penalty for this or that makes the rule set even more confusing. (I feel the same way about dual classification) Remember a few months ago when they briefly considered making all of us put a sticker on the car with our minimum weight to make life easier on the scrutineers? Then it would have to say 'this many pounds if 6" wheels, this many if 7"' Like SG says 'I'm not saying, I'm just saying' (is that it?)
How about letting the B and C guys decide? I know getting a consensus around here is like herding cats.
One thing that strikes me though, is how some folks have warned that a little creep leads to more creep, one allowance giving rise to more allowances. For example the allowance for 15" dia wheels being used as a reason for 1" more width being OK. Slippery slope indeed.
Andy Rowe

[ScotMac]

I think this "few obscure cars" thing has gone way too far. Where as it is true that the problem is greater for particular bolt patterns (5x100), it is not true that the supply issue is ONLY for cars w/ those bolt patterns. Please go back and take a look at my post of the relative supply of the different sizes. That data is not just for a particular bolt pattern, but is instead across ALL bolt patterns.

[JoshS]

Oh, i see the misunderstanding. Do you believe that made my statements about "ideal" based on the "measured rim"? That is not true, at all. Gary, brought up the concept of "ideal", and i just answered him based on Hoosier's "recommended rim" sizes. ie, i assumed (logically) that the "ideal" would be the middle of the recommended rim sizes.
[/b]

Oh. My bad :-) Yes, I thought you were saying that Hoosier's "measured rim" was "ideal." So, gotcha, I agree, it seems likely that Hoosier's ideal size would be the middle of the recommended range.

But it's still the case that the tread width/section width numbers you were referencing were based on the "measured" rim width, so there could be some variance.

Again, not sure what this does to the conclusion, if anything.

[Knestis]

...One thing that strikes me though, is how some folks have warned that a little creep leads to more creep, one allowance giving rise to more allowances. For example the allowance for 15" dia wheels being used as a reason for 1" more width being OK. Slippery slope indeed.
Andy Rowe
[/b]

So it's NOT just me? That's kind of encouraging.

K

[Eagle7]

Thanks Greg. I understand your point, but believe that "at this point" it is best left here.[/b]

I would much prefer that if you want an extended discussion of wheels that you open a wheels topic.

[gran racing]

Per your request Marty...

Link to More wheel talk. Really? Ah, why not.

[shwah]

Wow. This discussion is still going on...

And even with a side discussion about the state of, and location of the discussion under discussion.

We are really out doing ourselves this time :P

(Oh not that I am rejoining, but I just did a search for wheels in the size I choose to run 13x6, 4x100 - guess what, lightweight racing ones are very expensive, but I will keep looking and saving - at some point one method or the other will get me what I want)