Wheel width, ITB, again

[Knestis]

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? ...

1. All constraints in the rules are arbitrary if you want to view them as such, or if one completely ignores context. The ITAC arguably doesn't have the luxury of reframing what is arbitrary and what isn't. More simply, you assertion moves from a huge overstatement: That restricting wheel size "makes it more expensive to buy wheels." That's patently not true unless you argue that the exception defines the rule.

2. Again, your contention that opening up wheel size to anything that keeps the tire inside the fender will "make things cheaper" for IT competitors across the entire membership just isn't justified by any evidence - unless I've missed something. Controlling for all other variables, it's generally the case that larger wheels of any given manufacturer and style cost more than smaller ones.

Now, if you are talking about saving money for a few, individual racers in specific unusual situations - like I completely appreciate Rodger and his Mopar bros are in - you are right. But it would be HORRIBLE policy to make categorical rules to satisfy the neeeds, even urgent needs, of a few people.

I'm a little amazed that this is seemingly so hard to understand.

K

[frnkhous]

The more I read into this I see the only real reason to change this rule is new cars itc beetle maybe and a few itb cars that may come with wider than 6" wheels and bigger than 15". Finding a 16 or 17 x 6 wheel may be harder. Almost everything else can be found either by junkyard shopping or careful looking for odd sources of wheels. They can be extremely expensive no matter what you make the rule. If you carry the thinking to allowing oem wheels as ok then you don't have to worry about that problem. you could allow anyone to run 15" wheels in itb/c and that may eliminate the search for narrow larger diameter wheels. The fact that if you look in junkyards/online most vehicles can get a less than 15lbs wheel for less than 200 dollars i'm not sure what we have is broken. People will always spend more for an advantage. I sure don't wanna buy 15x8 inch volks to fit 275/35 15 inch hoosier a6's on an itc car. No I don't ever think that would really be necessary but that rules out opening it up. That and I'm guessing if Mr. Amy wants to send me his car and a big enough check you can fit a 15x7 with a 225 tire(2" springs and very very rolled fender, maybe more negative camber with the strut/offset with lca bushing to adjust back). Just upped the cost more. I don't think open or bigger rules fits the IT ruleset until most new cars competing are "downgrading"
I'd like to know if the newer cars 2000+ (that will be itb/c cars) are going to have problems getting 15x6 inch wheels to fit over brakes, and how many came with larger wheels than that in either width or diameter than that from the factory. The only reason I see to change this is for the next grouping of cars that will be classed in itb/c

Brian

[Greg Amy]

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...?

To be (less) specific, ITB folks seem to not want any change, non-ITB folks are open to the idea. Could just be something as simple as non-ITB folks ain't got no skin in the game (though that seems like a lot better position to make an objective decision...) and vice-versa. - GA

[frnkhous]

To be (less) specific, ITB folks seem to not want any change, non-ITB folks are open to the idea. Could just be something as simple as non-ITB folks ain't got no skin in the game (though that seems like a lot better position to make an objective decision...) and vice-versa. - GA

I have an ITC car and am open to the idea, however the more I think about it, I don't see how it helps anything other than classing future cars. People that can't find 6" wide wheels don't really seem to be looking that hard.(for the most part) Obviously exceptions will exist and cars moved from ita to itb are never going to like this the 6 inch rule. Other than being uniform for wheel rules, what does a 7" rule change do for itb? I can't see it doing anything except maybe making the cars faster, upping cost for current competitors, and putting some cars that aren't currently at a disadvantage at one. More wear and tear on hubs, brakes, bearings etc. from more wheel/tire. How is this helping anyone? Honestly for my car it just means I won't have the 13" wheel option because I'd rather run 15's for weight/cost, so I don't care that much personally. I even have a set of13-15lbs 15x7 inch wheels I could run up front if the rule took effect, so the money isn't the issue. I'm just not sure It makes sense. Can anyone tell me why we should have 7 inch wheels besides I already got some pimp 7inch wheels for my itb car that used to be an ita car?

Brian

[jjjanos]

1. All constraints in the rules are arbitrary if you want to view them as such, or if one completely ignores context.

Well, no. Arbitrary - Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.

I believe that you have said that the rule was in place because those were the general maximum size when the category was formed - which fails on necessity, reason and principle. The rule waass overly complex for limiting to stock width - wheels simply could have been limited to the stock rim width. The rule grants an allowance to lighter cars without a corresponding adjustment in the weight setting process. It fails to consider the case of newer cars that came with larger wheels stock and does so without a corresponding adjustment in the weight setting process.

Now, if you are talking about saving money for a few, individual racers in specific unusual situations - like I completely appreciate Rodger and his Mopar bros are in - you are right. But it would be HORRIBLE policy to make categorical rules to satisfy the neeeds, even urgent needs, of a few people.

I'm in favor of giving the orphans a spec line adjustment. I'm in favor of classifying new cars with their stock sizes as their max and adjusting the process weight to account for any perceived competion advantage. You, however, have taken precision strikes via a spec line adjustment off the table, thus leaving carpet bombing as the only weapon in the arsenal.

Some members of the ITAC seem perfectly willing to modify the FWD adjustment, thus there should be no doctrinal reasons to take a stock wheel size adjustment off the table for the orphans and newly classified cars.

I quote - "to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car." The die is cast for already classified cars, but requiring that drivers buy smaller wheels than stock for newly classified cars fails on both useful and necessary.

I'm a little amazed that this is seemingly so hard to understand.

I return the above statement to you

[rlward]

Jake, thanks, I dont' know who else in on the itac as no oene else advertises it. Heck I don't even know how many are on it or what weight they carry.
I understand your frustration with someone that wants answers to what you consider selfish questions. I don't see it that way. As you can see by the latest fury of responses, this question has a lot of people thinking. Those that have a stock of wheels, those that are in the process of buying new wheels, and those that have been reclassified and must buy new wheels.
My issue with wheels made outside the US is the same as dog food made outside the US, no guidelines, therefore no reliability or responsibility. Sorry if you got the wrong impression that Made in China is acceptable.
You did not respond to my 2 alternate suggestions, one for ITB and another for IT accross the board. I am not trying to belabor this, I am looking for posible answers/solutions to the delima..buy now or wait for a change.

Buy the way, to the rest of you, there has been some great posts on this issue from a lot of people...keep it up, maybe there is a viable solution out there somewhere. (I still like the fitment solution.) Anyone else?

[shwah]

I know Greg is speaking in generalizations, but it's not accurate that all ITB folks don't want a change (though it certainly seems to be most). I would not necessarily oppose changing the wheel rule, but the reason cited for said change should be a bit more genuine than what got us into this discussion.

I do think something should be done for the New Beetle and similar cars that may literally not have legal wheel options.

In other situations, I would prefer a categorical allowance over spec line allowances.

I think a 'sunset' period that allows cars moved to compete in either class would be a fair way to let those racing cars moved down to make thier own choice.

Yes if the rule allowed 7" wheels I would HAVE to go out and get a set - at least a set - and go testing to see what the data tells me.

[gran racing]

non-ITB folks are open to the idea.

LOL Well of course they are. Ask the other classes if they'd be open to the idea of using 8" rims. Better yet, propose the idea of eliminating the maximum 7" width line. Don't think they'll care?

I do think something should be done for the New Beetle and similar cars that may literally not have legal wheel options.

This is the only scenario where I can see a spec line added for them to allow a different wheel size. Of course it would also need to be included in the classification process. Other cars, no.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I wouldn't mind if wheel sizes opened up in ITA. I am all about making my car as fast as it can be. But the right thing for the category on the whole? No way.

We haven't received any letters telling us that they want to build a NB but the only thing that is holding them back is the wheel-rule constraint. It's the weight in ITC that is the issue. A move to ITB at a 'we-don't-think-it-can-get-there' weight doesn't change the wheel issue at all.

I would be in favor of a spec line allowance of a 16' diameter (if that was the only stock option) but not for a larger width. As cars 'like this' proliferate themselves into IT, a categorical change should be considered, but simply not for less than a handful of cars.

[Knestis]

Well, no. Arbitrary - Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.

Right on. A LOT of the current IT rules are the result of chance, whim, and impulse, by a large number of individuals, constitutions of committees, and frankly by neglect and default for a couple of decades. That alone does not make changing them worth the cost. There is value in stability and we hear from members all the time that this is an aspect of the category that they value.

Now, situations and context DO change so the ITAC has to weigh the benefit/cost of any idea, but against costs associated with change alongside others.

... I'm in favor of classifying new cars with their stock sizes as their max and adjusting the process weight to account for any perceived competion advantage.

It might surprise you to find out that I (personally) don't necessarily see a general rule that allows a make/model case to use the stock size wheel if it's larger than the general allowance as a spec-line allowance. I'm WAY less worried about any broad statement of practice in the rules than I am about something that applies to just a couple of cars specifically, even if in operation the general only actually translates to a few cases. It's about leaving room in the process for shenanigans, to my way of thinking.

The rotaries are an example of this: It's just not possible to think of them using the same practices as piston engines, 'cause they're just freakin' different. That does not however mean that we can generalize ignoring standard practice more broadly, on the argument that we do it for the rotaries.

Some members of the ITAC seem perfectly willing to modify the FWD adjustment, thus there should be no doctrinal reasons to take a stock wheel size adjustment off the table for the orphans and newly classified cars.

The two don't have anything to do with one-another really but I won't argue with either clause separately...

All that said (and I think mostly I was agreeing with you, right?), none of this makes even the allowances I describe here effective at categorically decreasing costs for IT racers. For SOME, yes. For MOST, no. For ALL, not even remotely.

K

[lateapex911]

Jake, thanks, I dont' know who else in on the itac as no oene else advertises it. Heck I don't even know how many are on it or what weight they carry.

All board and committee info is easy to get with your member number:

http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=89

The ITAC is one of the larger ad hocs, and hovers between 7 and 9 members. Membership is on an invite basis. We try to represent the IT community as a whole, and attempt to diversify geographically, as well as choose members with varying car ownership and class status. Members are required to be active racers, and they must have an IT background.

Currently, you have more access to the ITAC then perhaps ever before. On top of that the ITAC is probably the committee that broke the "keep quiet" rule first, and has used the internet to communicate with, and get the pulse of, the racers at large. I bet there isn't a committee that is so open and has the same level of dialog with it's members as the ITAC. I think that's great for IT, but there are costs to pay for that, and anyone on the ITAC can attest to that.

On this board, you've probably read posts by Josh Sirota, (ITR BMW) Kirk Knestis, (ITB Glf) myself (ITA RX-7), Scott Giles (ITB Honda Civic and our chairman Andy Bettencourt (ITA Miata) . 5 out of 8 is pretty good.

We meet via con call once a month to discuss big picture management issues of IT, internal procedural issues, and we go over letters we get. All of our activity results in recommendations to the CRB, which then decides to support or deny them. Depending on the nature of the recommendation, it is either then enacted on, or sent to the BoD to be voted on. Our last con call went until after 1AM eastern. There always seems to be a lot to cover.

Past ITAC members have been asked to join the CRB. Those are Chris Albin (ITB Golf) and Peter Keane (ITB Accord)

[shwah]

We haven't received any letters telling us that they want to build a NB but the only thing that is holding them back is the wheel-rule constraint. It's the weight in ITC that is the issue. A move to ITB at a 'we-don't-think-it-can-get-there' weight doesn't change the wheel issue at all.

Andy - there is someone trying to build a New Beetle right now that has posted here in the past month and just realized the wheel issue.

[jjjanos]

Andy - there is someone trying to build a New Beetle right now that has posted here in the past month and just realized the wheel issue.

https://improvedtouring.com...ad.php?t=26077

https://improvedtouring.com...ad.php?t=26075

[Andy Bettencourt]

Like I said guys, we haven't got any letters.

The weight issue will rage forever. The 'I would rather be lighter and not be able to make my spec weight vs. be heavier and be able to run at minimum'. I believe it is in the best interest of the category to have cars classed at weights they can make. I would fully support a move to ITB if someone built one and proved it. as long as they assume they would be in ITC with ballast unless they had info to offer otherwise, it should be fine. If it's too much of a risk, don't build it. It's a tweener and we have no great answers for them. We just do our best - and IMHO classing them appropriately is the best.

On the wheel issue, we have cars already existing in the ITCS that are excluded from using their stock sized wheels so it's not as 'special' as some may think.

It's an interesting topic for sure, one that the ITAC / CRB will continually have to be on top of for sure.

[shwah]

On the wheel issue, we have cars already existing in the ITCS that are excluded from using their stock sized wheels so it's not as 'special' as some may think.

That is a different case. The issue is not that they are excluded from a stock size. It is that they may not be able to acheive a legal size - or at least have the most legitimate case for this argument to date. When is the last time you found ANY 16x6 wheel? Not just a nice, light, US made, etc. wheel. One at all. Cars that have larger wheels in ITC and ITB may be S.O.L if something does not change.

[Andy Bettencourt]

That is a different case. The issue is not that they are excluded from a stock size. It is that they may not be able to acheive a legal size - or at least have the most legitimate case for this argument to date. When is the last time you found ANY 16x6 wheel? Not just a nice, light, US made, etc. wheel. One at all. Cars that have larger wheels in ITC and ITB may be S.O.L if something does not change.

How about a 15x6?

But the point is valid. The question is simple. Does 1 or 2 cars promt a proactive categorical change that obsoletes a ton of equipment or is it appropriate to allow a spec-line exception with or without some sort of penalty...

[quadzjr]

The use of stock wheels or aftermarket wheels up to six inches in width are permited. Done..

That will atleast allow temporarily the ITC beetle and other cars that fall inot this special catagory to run around legaly and cheaply and get built. no more problem..

[Andy Bettencourt]

The use of stock wheels or aftermarket wheels up to six inches in width are permited. Done..

That will atleast allow temporarily the ITC beetle and other cars that fall inot this special catagory to run around legaly and cheaply and get built. no more problem..

Not done. That sounds like an ITB/ITC rule only. What about ITS Porsches that came with 7.5" wheels? What about RX-7's that came with 16" wheels? I bet there were some option packages on some ITR cars that were greater than 17x8.5 too. I am going to make an assumption that you would like to allow the following by your post:

1. Allow any stock wheel that came on the car that is included in the spec line
2. Allow any diamter wheel as long as it is no larger than 6" in width

Questions for you in devil's advocate mode:

1. Only STOCK wheels, correct? Not stock SIZED wheels...
2. What if a newly classed ITB car came with 16x8's. Any penalty for the use of that size in terms of classification weight?

[quadzjr]

since the topic was about ITB and then the conversation swapped over to the beetle came up in ITC.. my solutions was only for ITB/ITC

I would leave the rule as it states for all classes C->R, but allow cars to run stock wheels, not stock sized. This way it may equal it out. It will give you the option of running lighter wheels with a smaller width, or heavier stock wheels that the car came with.

Especially in the lower level cars wheel weight may cancel the effect of the the higher cross-section.. also if Wombat GT gets classed for ITB that came stock with 8" wheels from the factory I would imagine that.

a. the car was designed to be on performace tires, hence the width

b. and since it is a performance themed vehicle, and is requested to be classed in ITB, and new cars are heaveir then heck already, but they come with more hp stock and bigger wheels.

It is too hard to come up with a definete long term solution.. there are too many variables, and frankly I don't know how the ITAC makes decsions like this, especially knowing that someone is going to be upset with you no matter which way you choose.

personally if I choose to build a car in a class that wheel options were limited (whcih I kind of am.. bolt pattersn are no problem.. but all I can find are wheels for FWD offsets, so I have to run a bunch of spacers jsut to get it back to stock) I would just get some custom steel wheels built. they may not look as cool, but hey are relatively cheap and have any offset, diameter, width, and bolt pattern you are looking for.

[shwah]

How about a 15x6?

Not legal. Only cars with 13 and 14" wheels may alternatively use 15" wheels. Yes, letting everyone run 15" diameter would also solve the problem in that particular case.