Wheel width, ITB, again

[nip_mr2]

Stupid question but:

How much of a performance difference is there between 6" to 7" wheels with the same size tires? Example 14x6 with 205/55 or 14x7 with 205/55. Has there been a test to see if there is an advantage and if so will it make a noticeable difference with lets say a mid-pack car that run constantly in 10th to 11th place. How many position will that person gain?

My car just got move to ITB this year, and like alot of other driver's out there I bitched about having to buy new wheels and the weight I had to add. But the rules are what they are. I read earlier in this thread about someone saying about changing the rules for selfish reasons, because they have to buy new wheels is not a reason. If the reason is it might make them more competitive and have closer racing then that might make a difference. But will that be fair for the other driver's that is running the 6" wheel. How do we balance the playing field for all of us. We all try to find the grey areas in the rules in this sport. Most, if not all of us are pretty gentlemenly about the rules, policing each other, and we all want to win. But if it's going to make for closer racing and there is not a distinct advantage for that one or two cars, why not allow that type of car to run that size wheel. Not all of us want to drive the same car.

Just to clarify I not bitching about what I had to do to my car to make it legal for this season. I'm just questioning how much gain/difference the wheel size will have on the racing

[rlward]

Jake, a rule change does not dictate everyone has to go out and buy new wheels, but a class change does. I think I have you to thank for that.

I have accepted that if a 2 year exception is the only thing available, I'll go with that and bring this up again in 2 years.

I have not touted a class change but rather a global change for all IT classes. Some of the latest suggestions lately have made some sense as it allows for changes in availability.

I am comptitive in B, thank you. but I want to be MORE competitive. I need to reduce wheel weight, change track, and I need to replace old wheels, and new 7" wheels (thank you again).

You sound to me like you don't want any changes that will possibly upset your apple cart.

I take exception to your statement about any answer that doesnt please ME....you make this sound as if I am asking for a change for my car only. I am not. I asked the question if it was time to review the rule on sizes because of change in the market. 5 years ago there were plenty of 15X6 wheels being made. How many manufacturers can you find now, and I don't mean those off brand wheels made in China, how many reliable makers in the US?

Your responses have been based on the assumption that EVERYONE will have to change because of the needs of a few. Maybe only a few have voiced their opinions here. Maybe ther are more than a few, I don't know

If a change was to go to 7" in ITB only: How many ITB drivers have you personally talked to about this issue? Do they feel that they will HAVE to go out and buy new wheel soley because of a size change? Are they receptive to that change?

If the rule was changed as suggested above based on fitment for all of IT, have you personally asked any owners if they would feel a need to immediatly go out and buy all new wheel inventory?

If the rule never changes and 15X6, or any wheel size now in the books become a rare as hens teeth, is that ok with you as, "that's the role of the dice sometimes"?

This is not an easy issue to address and maybe there is no solution other than a short term one. Maybe we should look at this 2 ways, on one side a possible change to 7" in ITB only, with input from current ITB owners only, and then another one for a global change for all of IT with input from all.

What do you think about that?

[Knestis]

Please recognize that I'm not being argumentative, Rodger. I just feel an obligation to clarify for the good of the order...

>> I have accepted that if a 2 year exception is the only thing available, I'll go with that and bring this up again in 2 years.

As one who put that kind of idea into the discussion, I need to clarify what was in my head: The concept of a explicit provision in the rules to allow the ITAC to temporarily spec a make/model moved from A to B outside of our normal guidelines, to lessen the blow of the transition (e.g., 7" wheels at a higher spec weight during that time). The rules would spell out precisely how it would work.

That's a subtly - but importantly - different thing than simply granting a 2-year exception to allow this model to use 7" wheels, that might be extended later. In fact, on reflection the idea that folks would push to do such a thing is a strong argument against considering it, to my way of thinking. That's one fundamental mechanism by which rules creep works.

This kind of thing would be a huge allowance given where we are with the effort to standardize the category, and I do not bring it up lightly. Like tax breaks, a gimme of that type can be politically difficult to stick with when the sunset date approaches. I won't even pretend that it has much of a chance but I will tell you that if I were (personally) to support it, you could count on me to stick to the end date like a freaking barnacle.

K

[Greg Amy]

...allow the ITAC to temporarily spec a make/model moved from A to B outside of our normal guidelines, to lessen the blow of the transition (e.g., 7" wheels at a higher spec weight during that time)...This kind of thing would be a huge allowance given where we are with the effort to standardize the category, and I do not bring it up lightly.

How about this idea: if you think there's a significant difference in performance between 6" and 7" wheels, and you think the ITAC can reasonably come up with a solution vis-a-vis a proper amount of weight to accommodate that performance advantage, how about encoding it for both ITB and ITC? In other words, instead of making that available just to moved cars, make it available to everyone, and let's see how the chips fall a fw years down the road? You could even do that with a sunset/mandatory re-review clause...let the competitors decide and illustrate if the idea is sound...

Make it a high number, such that there would "appear" to be no advantage, and let the chips fall as they may.

Just thinking out loud... - GA

[tom91ita]

Greg,

a quick clarifying question...

are you "proposing" something like car XX could run 6" wheels at 2000 #'s or run 7" wheels at 2200 #'s in the same class (e.g., IT?

above numbers are purely for illustrative purposes.

tom

[Knestis]

How about this idea... GA

That would be enough change, that (as Chris describe) we'd probably be better off just "ripping off the Band-aid" and going whole-hog with a new approach.

For the "ease-the-pain" policy, the sound approach would be, as you describe, to make the weight penalty substantial enough that it errs on the side of not a benefit.

All of this is purely academic at this point, of course.

K

EDIT - I should be explicit that the above is predicated on my belief that it would be very hard to get a handle on managing the weight difference necessary to implement something like that.

[lateapex911]

Jake, a rule change does not dictate everyone has to go out and buy new wheels, but a class change does. I think I have you to thank for that.

I have accepted that if a 2 year exception is the only thing available, I'll go with that and bring this up again in 2 years.

1- you have the people who wrote in and begged the car get reviewed and moved. The math showed it couldn't compete at the ITA performance target, and that the weight at which it could would be impossibly low, IIRC. So thank the letter writers, not me.

2- Let me clarify the "exception" you bring up. I for one would support a 2 year dual classing. But that's it. No line item exceptions for different equipment, or differing weighs. Simply, keep running it in ITA, or move to B. your choice.

I have not touted a class change but rather a global change for all IT classes. Some of the latest suggestions lately have made some sense as it allows for changes in availability.

I am comptitive in B, thank you. but I want to be MORE competitive. I need to reduce wheel weight, change track, and I need to replace old wheels, and new 7" wheels (thank you again).

You sound to me like you don't want any changes that will possibly upset your apple cart.

If by "your apple cart" you mean a category that has time and time again has said, "move slowly, be stable" as a major philosophy, then sure....I'm careful about changes that do more harm than good. You say that a rule change doesn't force everyone to go out and purchase wheels, and you're right, it doesn't. But, the competitive reality is that you have just started a spending war with such a change. Those with the $ will raise the bar if they can, and those who had worked their way into a competitive position ...but aren't as well flushed are now looking at mandatory expense just to regain their former competitive level.

I take exception to your statement about any answer that doesnt please ME....you make this sound as if I am asking for a change for my car only. I am not. I asked the question if it was time to review the rule on sizes because of change in the market. 5 years ago there were plenty of 15X6 wheels being made. How many manufacturers can you find now, and I don't mean those off brand wheels made in China, how many reliable makers in the US?

That sounds great, but the entire subject came up because you aren't happy with the choices that you have found for your car. Plenty of options have been listed here, and you've shot all them down as: "Too much money, too dangerous, too heavy, not competitive enough", etc. It's not that you don't have options, it's that you don't like them. If you owned an ITS car with plentiful wheel choices, you could be making these claims more effectively, but your stake in the matter shows the true origin of the issue.

If a change was to go to 7" in ITB only: How many ITB drivers have you personally talked to about this issue? Do they feel that they will HAVE to go out and buy new wheel soley because of a size change? Are they receptive to that change?

The guys I've talked to are rolling their eye. That's informal polling...I'll keep asking.

If the rule was changed as suggested above based on fitment for all of IT, have you personally asked any owners if they would feel a need to immediatly go out and buy all new wheel inventory?

I don't need to ask. Nobody will change anything if their competitive goals are being met. But, if their competition ups the game, well, it's a slippery slope. In essence, the cost of success is directly related to the popularity of the game. In other words, you can win on stock rubber in some regions, and there's no reason to do more. But, where it i more popular, it gets competitive, and you need to be on the perfect cycled tire, the perfect wheels, the perfect springs, damper settings, etc etc, etc.

If the rule never changes and 15X6, or any wheel size now in the books become a rare as hens teeth, is that ok with you as, "that's the role of the dice sometimes"?

It's not my favorite answer, but I'm mindful of changing rules to satisfy small percentages of the population. The old English Prod guys kept beating at the rules makers: "We can't get cranks that hold up anymore". Billet cranks were allowed. Line items came to be. Every old timer had a request for something to keep his car in the game, and often they were granted, but at the cost to the entire category. We are doomed to follow history if we don't learn from the mistakes.

This is not an easy issue to address and maybe there is no solution other than a short term one. Maybe we should look at this 2 ways, on one side a possible change to 7" in ITB only, with input from current ITB owners only, and then another one for a global change for all of IT with input from all.

What do you think about that?

My only palatable suggestion is dual classing for a period to ease the transition.

Finally, I run an old RX-7. Think it's easy getting lightweight 13 x 7 wheels at a cheap price? It's not. But you say" Just go to 15" versions". Sure, except that kills the gearing and the suspension geometry. But, here's my take: So what? It is what it is...it's an old car..I've gotten lots of miles and fun with it. Sheesh, it's run 2 logbooks worth of races. I'll deal with it. And now engine parts are in short/not available supply, and there is no replating allowed. So that's the end of the road on that. I'm not going to ask that the car be given an exception or that the rules be rewritten to allow me to keep racing the car...it's one car. I wouldn't vote for that if it came across the desk from some guy in a Wombat GT with the H4 engine, so I'm sure not going to for my own.

[rlward]

you are like a politician, you evade the specific answers to the question; I repeat:
I have suggesed a global change for IT.
How many manufacturers can you find that offer 15 x 6 wheels that are made in the US?
The guys that are rolling their eyes, Is that SCCA in all areas? how Many?
If you don't need to ask, does that mean you are omnipotent? and know whats best for all?
The ole english prod guys are still racing; how about that!!!!
Your palate does not necessarily reflect the tastes of the entire racing community.
As far as your RX7, why not? does it give you a competitive advantage to replate? I don't think so. Does it keep a competitor in IT? Yes. So what is wrong with that? It keeps another competitor on the game.

[frnkhous]

http://www.diamondracingwheels.com/

might help you find and acceptable wheel both on price and size and build location.

Yeah I get what your upset about, and i'd be upset if I dropped 1500 dollars on 6.8lbs 13x6 inch wheels for my itc/itb car and the rule became 7 inches.(currently itc but can be switched) Now I could also do some junkyard shopping and get bmw 320i wheels for 100 bux a set or less. I'm not positive but I think they are 12 lbs or less. I'm not sure whether I think a move to 7" wheels really changes anything. As jake pointed out 13x7 wheels are expensive, and 14x7 aren't much better, although a few more options exist. I have a 1990 honda not exactly a rare car yet I could easily drop 1500 dollars on wheels(with the current rule). Basically I kinda think your stuck... maybe we should up the size to 7" inches. I have a dog in the fight and don't really know what to think. As a side note personally all the fwd cars would likely only need to upgrade the fronts to 7"inches wide. but i'm sure many would disagree. I actually have 14x5.5 inch wheels I occasionally run and the sky doesn't fall.

I'll buy and be running 15x7 rpf1's if the rule changed cause i've already done the testing, even if the cars were far different... but honestly from a cost standpoint I can run 14x6 wheels for 120 dollars that weigh the same. Which ones cheaper? 6 inches still makes a lot of sense. yet I could spend 1500 dollars for 4 wheels on the same car pretty easy.

[RexRacer19]

The guys that are rolling their eyes, Is that SCCA in all areas? how Many?

However many guys he has rolling their eyes, add one more from the Southeast.

[gran racing]

I'm just questioning how much gain/difference the wheel size will have on the racing

Doug, While there’s an advantage when looking at just one lap time, where I see the biggest advantage is later in the race especially for cars that have a lot of weight in the front. I also believe some cars would benefit from this more than others. Your MR2 – using R compounds it probably won’t matter too much. When Jake F. began using A compounds in his MR2, I know moving to 6” rims would have hurt that tire approach and may have forced a switch back to R compounds.

Do they feel that they will HAVE to go out and buy new wheel solely because of a size change?

I would not go out and buy new rims because I need to focus on getting seat time. See Greg! J I do know that others would buy them and those who didn’t, just lost a bit in performance competitiveness. When I go back down to the ARRC (if this rule were to happen), I’d absolutely borrow some ITA driver’s 7” wide rims for the event. Basically what Jake said about the spending war.

As a side note personally all the fwd cars would likely only need to upgrade the fronts to 7"inches wide. but i'm sure many would disagree.

Not in terms of on track performance, but in terms of tire management. For fwd cars, once the fronts reach 7 / 8 cycles, they just go on the rear. Having a mix of rims complicates this or forces unmounting, mounting ($).

Roger, where do you typically race? Without getting into a debate with them, take a few minutes to ask the ITB drivers at next event how they'd feel about allowing 7" rims.

[jjjanos]

That quite literally doesn't make any sense. Beyond the self-evident fact that if a rule gets deleted, the ITCS gets shorter

Which part doesn't make sense?
1. That the arbitrary constraint in the rules makes it more expensive to buy wheels?
2. That simply deleting the language establishing the constraint and relying upon the language already in the ITCS to limit legal wheel size is an example of a rules change making thigns cheaper?

Doesn't the fact that some cars can get a 9" rim in there while others are stuck with 6" bother anyone?

Doesn't the fact that some cars get double-wishbone suspensions and others are stuck with torsion bars and struts bother anyone?

That is a rather random post classification comp adjustment if you ask me...

I think that requires a rather expansive - even more than what I use - definition of comp adjustment, particularly since the changes are being applied uniform without an idea (at least for me) as to which cars get the change or their current competitiveness.

[Greg Amy]

Doesn't the fact that some cars can get a 9" rim in there while others are stuck with 6" bother anyone?

The post above reminded me I wanted to reply to this...

Jake, this shouldn't bother anyone any more than the fact that some cars can fit wider tires and larger spacers than others NOW. The Suzuki, for example, can't use the 225 mm section width tires that all other cars seem to be able to; no way, no how (we are even close to rubbing the fenders with Hankook 205s; I have doubts that a Hoosier 205 will fit.) It also can't use any wheel offset much different than stock due to being within 2 mm on the struts on the inside. Of course, increasing track via spacers ain't gonna happen, either. And - side issue to what we're discussing here - finding any wheels below 12-ish pounds in 4x4.25 pattern at low prices is tough.

Point is, we set outer boundaries and allow competitors to proper within that boundary. The issue at hand with this topic is "what would be the effect of increasing that boundary 1" on width?"; that, I suggest would be insignificant in terms of performance, as all cars should be pushing that outer track envelope anyway; at best they'd have to reduce track to use the wider wheels (assuming section width is slightly increased and the tire sits flatter with 225s on 7" versus 225s on 6".)

And, moving that boundary to "what would fit within the fenders" does nothing to increase the outer location of the tires; we already have that with the current fender limits. Allowing wheels/tires that would "fit" (instead of the current 6" limit) would only allow increase in section width inwards, and that would be limited by suspension design and by performance factors (e.g., no one would theoretically have an increased performance advantage by using 325 section width tires, as no car in ITB/C has the weight and/or torque to get those size tires up to temperature).

I'm not necessarily condoning changes in the rules, I just get annoyed by such extreme-view knee-jerk reaction to those ideas...

BTW, I've been doing an informal poll on this topic, and ITAC aside it appears that all current ITB competitors are happy with the current rule, and all non-ITB competitors and/or those going into ITB want the rule changed. Proving, yet again, that arguments about these kind of things are pointless, as the majority are simply looking out for themselves...

[lateapex911]

The post above reminded me I wanted to reply to this...

Jake, this shouldn't bother anyone any more than the fact that some cars can fit wider tires and larger spacers than others NOW. ...................

BTW, I've been doing an informal poll on this topic, and ITAC aside it appears that all current ITB competitors are happy with the current rule, and all non-ITB competitors and/or those going into ITB want the rule changed. Proving, yet again, that arguments about these kind of things are pointless, as the majority are simply looking out for themselves...

Stop right there, friend! I absolutely agree that some cars can fit wider tires than otheres now. Yup...and that's one thing we all consider when choosing our ride. We look at the car in question, and aask ourselves or anyone that can answer, "Can I get the same tire under there that my competition is using??" Maybe we can't, and maybe the car is super ight, and we can live with the result, but if the cars a barge, and there's no room under the fender, we move on, right? (Assuming we want to be competitive) As long as the car in question can match the max allowable, we're fine, because they the cars that could use larger rims are bound by the rules .....

Now, if other cars have room for 9" rims, and our choice was just able to match the largest size at the time of the 6" rule, but that rule gets dropped, we've just now changed the game..post classification, and some guys get a potential big benefit, others are outside looking in.

While the rule proposed is class, or category wide, it's effect isn't equally distributed.

It's the same way I'd react if somebody suggested we do away with unique engine adders, and the rotaries got the same as everyone. That's fine if we're just starting the class, and everyone has free choice, but post classification, a change like that will benefit some, not others, and they are stuck.

If the category or class was set up that way, and cars classed accordingly going in, fine. But not now.

[lateapex911]

Which part doesn't make sense?

Doesn't the fact that some cars get double-wishbone suspensions and others are stuck with torsion bars and struts bother anyone?



I think that requires a rather expansive - even more than what I use - definition of comp adjustment, particularly since the changes are being applied uniform without an idea (at least for me) as to which cars get the change or their current competitiveness.

See above comments in the post with Greg's quote for the general response.

As to the double wishbone, etc, some factors are accounted for in the classification process. Others like torsion bars, are not considered performance items, and get nothing. Tbars are springs, and while they are a pain to deal with, they can function fine. They fall under the "choose your car carefully, warts and all", response.

Semantics. In my eye, it's a change to the class that will change the competitive balance, which is opposite of the goal of the entire racing concept, which is to class cars in an equal manner. Such a change has a random result, and I can't see that as good.

[Greg Amy]

If the category or class was set up that way, and cars classed accordingly going in, fine. But not now.

How come? If "warts and all" is an acceptable defense, why is it only acceptable as a defense for the status quo? Are you basically saying that as an ITAC committee member you are only concerned about "warting" new cars coming in, that when considering a rule change it's more important to maintain the status quo (versus what's best for the class as a whole)?

'Cause "warts" can go both ways.

It's an honest question, not a trap. Personally, I would "expect" rulesmakers to carry a blind eye and balance it all out from a 30,000-foot view, rather than having a pre-disposed hair-trigger towards making sure to not upset the apple cart... - GA

[ekim952522000]

....

If the category or class was set up that way, and cars classed accordingly going in, fine. But not now.

Exactly. If ITB allowed 9" wheels from the beginning no big deal, a change now after people have picked cars based on the rules is not good IMO.

[lateapex911]

you are like a politician, you evade the specific answers to the question; I repeat:
I have suggesed a global change for IT.
How many manufacturers can you find that offer 15 x 6 wheels that are made in the US?

Sorry, I'm not doing hours of research to answer an irrelevant question.
Now you're adding "made in the USA " as a new qualification? Why not limit it to purple rims too? In this thread alone there have been adequate solutions posted. Simply put, you and you alone are demanding too narrow of an answer. I'm sorry if you can't find made in the us 8 pound rims that are brand new and sell for $125 each. But I'm not going to support a foundational change to an entire category to make one or two guys lives easier, while at the same time making an entire class test and resolve what they should do. But hey, I'm only one guy on the ITAC, I can be easily outvoted...that's politics!

The guys that are rolling their eyes, Is that SCCA in all areas? how Many?
If you don't need to ask, does that mean you are omnipotent? and know whats best for all?

Obviously, I haven't taken a poll. Reread the post. As for the second half...again, reread the post...sorry, but you're bordering on troll status..

The ole english prod guys are still racing; how about that!!!!
Your palate does not necessarily reflect the tastes of the entire racing community.

And the old English guys (and the "what's best for me" slippery slope rules changers) also decimated Prod, and the car counts took a serious dive, while other classes flourished. It is inarguable that Prod was in a bad way. The needs of the few were attended to while the needs of the many were ignored. Prod is just now staging a recovery, and it's by rolling back to a different prep level. I give them a TON of credit. Stuffing the Genie back in the bottle aint easy. So I really could care less if they are still racing, ...because keeping them had huge costs.

As far as your RX7, why not? does it give you a competitive advantage to replate? I don't think so. Does it keep a competitor in IT? Yes. So what is wrong with that? It keeps another competitor on the game.

Here's the deal on that. The rules state no platings, etc. That means no platings, period. So, to change that requires line item exceptions. Typically the ITAC is against line item exceptions. In this case, I can see it going either way, as the rotary has it's own set of rules in the book. A more restrictive set, I might add. However, if I were to request it, it's an obvious conflict of interest. I have no first hand knowledge, but I understand the coatings increase power in the amount of dyno noise, if at all. If the question comes up, and I were forced to vote, I'd vote with the committee,but recusing myself is the actual action I'd take.

Now, I've stated and restated my position and I've bore everyone here with my responses, no doubt, so I'm going to get some work done.

[jjjanos]

Semantics. In my eye, it's a change to the class that will change the competitive balance, which is opposite of the goal of the entire racing concept, which is to class cars in an equal manner.

Except the cars aren't classed in an equal manner.

The 2800 lb Swedish Schooner is penalized relative to the 1735 riceburner and the process does nothing to adjust for this bias.

Given the suggestion of revising the FWD adder because of a perceived bias against higher-HP FWD-cars, I would think a recognized bias against heavy cars would be addressed first.

[Knestis]

...all non-ITB competitors and/or those going into ITB want the rule changed. Proving, yet again, that arguments about these kind of things are pointless, as the majority are simply looking out for themselves...

Help me understand this, Greg: Non-ITB competitors want the rule changed to allow 7" wheels in B, or to go to the "anything under the fenders" kind of solution for everyone...?

K