Wheel width, ITB, again

[Matt Rowe]

Although I have kept quiet through 12 (really 12 pages?) of this. You can certainly add me to the list of Shelby owners that was impacted by the change. Having gone through a couple of years of informal discussions on the car and seen the effects of the original great re-alignment with no change to car, I also purchase ~$1100 worth of wheels in February/March of 2007. Additionally, about a month before the Shelby reclassification was announced I committed to a different car having decided I was no longer gaining anything from running a car that would never be competitive. So in some ways I was doubly hit by the reclassification. The only saving grace was the wheels work equally well on my new weapon of choice.

However, no matter how much I may dislike the timeline and effect of reclassing this particular car, I still don't see that as the right argument for doing away with the 6" ITB/ITC rule. These types of effects are limited and it's obvious that the greater benefit is in the status quo. Just don't tell me (or anyone else in this situation) that they should be happy they wasted that money and development time. Commiserate with me, agree that it's tough, suggest that long term there is a bright side, whatever. But no one is going to be happy their car is now illegal and they have to spend money just to get back on track.

Now, I do think it's worth looking at the long term issues and seeing if there is a genuine need to reassess the wheel width rule. And I say that only because there appears to be quite a bit of differing opinion on the effects of wheel width on this particular category.

Obviously in an open ruleset, wider is better. With our limitations? Maybe the effect is minimal or it even damps out some of the other non-linear effects of weight. For instance, we have been debating if adders for different factors apply differently to heavy cars vs light cars. That may change if each car was able to run a similar weight vs tread width value. Obviously that's a complex problem to analyze and 12 more pages aren't going to resolve it but should is the wheel width limitation worth reviewing? Maybe?

[Matt Rowe]

One more thing. The poll is missing the option:

ITAC to investigate if a new long term strategy for wheel/tire limitations is needed

[Knestis]

>> One thing that has not been brought up is the fact that the spec line in the ITCS for the Shelby specifies 15" wheels.

Waitaminute. Did any of the year/make/model cars on that spec line come with 14s...???

K

[Greg Amy]

Did any of the year/make/model cars on that spec line come with 14s...???

Nope. Shelby Chargers all had 15" wheels.

I think his point was that he's in a position where he's got only ONE wheel size choice (well, he could go smaller, but that's a silly argument...) - GA

[Z3_GoCar]

Nope. Shelby Chargers all had 15" wheels.

I think his point was that he's in a position where he's got only ONE wheel size choice (well, he could go smaller, but that's a silly argument...) - GA

Actually, they can't... If the spec line says 15" that's the only diameter rim they can run. Same as the ITA Z3's came only with 16" rims, can't run 15" rims. Technically I can't run 16" rims on my ITR Z3 because the spec line says 17" but they did come with both 16" and 17" rims, so in my case the spec line is wrong.

[Z3_GoCar]

how did Z3GoCar and GA get to vote twice?

Because we both know the secret hand shake

[ekim952522000]

I would have like a choice that said "leave the width rule as is for all classes but make the diameter free."

[Greg Amy]

Actually, they can't... If the spec line says 15" that's the only diameter rim they can run...

Smaller WIDTH (topic of discussion at hand...) - GA

[gran racing]

that they should be happy they wasted that money and development time.

Matt, on Labor Day I'll buy you a beer and we can throw rocks at your 7" wide rims together. I don't think anyone will say one would or should be happy with the money they spent on 7" rims. If someone is looking to become as competitive as possible, I do think that sorrow lesses as they have been given a new lease on life even if it comes with a sacrifice. The rims people have in this size are not worthless. Sell them. Yes, still not perfect and I do feel bad that step is necessary. Just one more thing to worry about. Then again. That would never be a possiblity if the car remained in ITA.

Just curious. Did any of the Shelby owners write to the ITAC voicing that they'd want their cars to remain in ITA? Was there an effort to get other owners to do the same?

[Knestis]

Having given this a lot of noodle time, I think I've finally fixed on a position for myself. It's necessary to think of the issues at hand separately, or we overreach and maximize the chance for unintended consequences I believe...


Problem 1 - Owners of cars that get moved from A to B (a relatively common move compared to all other possibilities, even if moves really aren't all that common) are unduly imposed upon because their 7" wheels are illegal for their new class.

Solution - A two-year, closed-ended dual classification to ease the transition for current owners, with the specifications in both classes defined by current practices. Apply this category-wide, extended to a 2-year sunset of the e36 ITS/ITR dual listing. Append such listings in the ITCS with a footnote indicating their expiration date.

We ought to be sensitive to the imposition on individual members when a decision is made, thought to be good for the entire category. However, it's simply not reasonable to disrupt an entire category's worth of rules to accommodate a small number of cars in an unusual situation. Taking the broader view on this (rather than focusing just on wheels) accomplishes that without long-term impacts on the category, and the wheel issue is ameliorated.


Problem 2 - Newly classified cars may have stock wheels wider than allowed by the IT class where they end up. This may force some into unreasonably difficult situations re: availability, fitment, etc.

Solution - The answer is already in the rules - almost - and has been clarified by the recent remote-reservoir shock clarification: Clarify the language to make it explicit that if aftermarket wheels are used, they must conform to the current rules but that it is NOT required to change any stock part except to meet safety rules - including wheels.

This would be consistent with the broadest assumptions of the category and would give racers in a wheel pickle the most affordable solution to supply problems. It should never be illegal in IT to "do nothing" to the car, in any respect. The stock wheel weight vs. extra width variables are noise in the system.


For what it might be worth...

K

[Knestis]

Matt, on Labor Day I'll buy you a beer and we can throw rocks at your 7" wide rims together. I don't think anyone will say one would or should be happy with the money they spent on 7" rims. If someone is looking to become as competitive as possible, I do think that sorrow lesses as they have been given a new lease on life even if it comes with a sacrifice. The rims people have in this size are not worthless. Sell them. Yes, still not perfect and I do feel bad that step is necessary. Just one more thing to worry about. Then again. That would never be a possiblity if the car remained in ITA.

Just curious. Did any of the Shelby owners write to the ITAC voicing that they'd want their cars to remain in ITA? Was there an effort to get other owners to do the same?

We did have some Shelby owners send letters to the Board voicing their opposition to the move.

K

[Greg Amy]

I think I've finally fixed on a position for myself.

Given your "sunset clause" position, I infer that your position on the issue for those that wish to run 7" wheels due to price/availability of 6" (or, simply just want to run 7" outright in ITB/ITC) is "no bueno"? - GA

[StephenB]

I am in fovor of kirks position on this!

I do have an honest question for anyone on the ITAC that may be lurking here... I must be missing something. Why don't we allow Dual Classification? Kirk why are you suggesting keeping the dual classification to 2 years? I would think that we could leave all cars classified as they were (yes uncompetitive if that was the case) and let the drivers of the Car/Make decide what run group they want to run in. We may even get some people to "double Dip" if ITA and ITB are in different run groups. The only difference in rules are the wheel width and weight correct? Seems as though letting them run forever in both classes wouldn't hurt the class... or would it?

Thanks,
Stephen

[quadzjr]

+2 for Kirks solution.

I didn't think about people being able to double dip in a weekend by changing tires and ballast.

Though I am not on the ITAC, I think allowing indefinet dual classifications for these newly classed cars is a bad idea.. otherwise to be fair you would have to open it up to all cars re-classed previously

[ekim952522000]

+3 for Kirk's solution

[dickita15]

Good job Kirk although I do agree with Stephan, (did I really say that ). I really don’t see the problem with dual classification without the sunset.

[ekim952522000]

I think the problem with dual classification is really upping the work for the ITAC which they already have plenty of.

[lateapex911]

We did have some Shelby owners send letters to the Board voicing their opposition to the move.

K

IIRC, we had multiple letters, and I thought we had two letters from the same person opposing it. We had more for the move than against by a fair margin. It was on the books and in discussion for a loooong time. Like over a year, IIIRC.

[lateapex911]

what happened to the poll? Earlier it showed 115% as the "total", now the graphics are messed up... odd.

I agree the two year dual class is the best option for the cars being moved across lines of wheel change.

[JoshS]

I hate dual classifications. I hate that it's hard for anyone who isn't totally in tune with the IT ruleset (that is, potential IT competitors) to understand what the classing is all about.

It's bad enough when the same car is in multiple classes with different engines, and it's even worse when it's in different classes with the same engine.

Let me ask a question -- if there were no wheel size differences between classes, and the only difference in two classes was weight ... would you all be asking for dual classifications? Why? The only reason in my opinion would be to allow double-dipping for clubs where the two classes don't run in the same group, and I don't think classing decisions should be made at the national level for regional concerns (race groupings).

(Full disclosure: here in San Francisco Region all of the IT classes run together in the same race group.)