Wheel width, ITB, again

[StephenB]

I am a current competitor in ITB and I for personal reasons (Cost, Development, consitancy, fitment, ect) as a 10 year member to ITB see no reason to change the rules that have been in place for the entire 10 years I have been competing in the class. The only "Reason or argument" that has been posted in this thread (In my opinion) for 7" wheels would be for cars that come STOCK with 7" rims. I do think that if we are classifying cars that come stock with 7" rims then at that time we need to consider change. If we change the rules it should have nothing to do with availability or cost for the members regardless on how many are affected.


I have copy and pasted Andys questions and given my own answers as I think he asks the important questions that the ITAC should ask if they ever decide or even start to think of making changes to the current rule set. (At this time nothing is posted in Fasttrack or on the SCCA.Com forums seeking feedback)

1. Is the 6" wheel limitation in ITB/ITC pushing current competitors OUT? I think the ONLY way to measure this is based on the # of letters ALREADY sent to the ITAC (but maybe the ITAC can seek feedback from the IT community)

2. Is the 6" wheel limitation in ITB/ITC a barrier to new cas being built? I think the ONLY way to measure this is based on the # of letters ALREADY sent to the ITAC (but maybe the ITAC can seek feedback from the IT community)

3. Would moving to 7" (or totally open for that matter) upset the current membership? YES this would upset me (who is part of the current membership)

4. Would moving to 7" (or totally open for that matter) draw more cars/drivers INTO Improved Touring? Possible due to the fact that this was not addressed for cars being reclassified from ITA to ITB which incurred a cost to current SCCA members that may still be upset and chose to park their car in the garage.

5. Is there REALLY a supply problem currently or just a lack of mid-range choices? Heavy stuff and expensive stuff seem available. Not a valid reason for a Rule Change. I can't change the size of my brakes because the Brake carrier on my caliper is no longer available (Or should I write a letter?)

6. How long do you 'hold' on the rules in the name of stability - at the potential cost of 'futures'? What are the appropriate triggers for a change? (See questions 1-4)Interesting question (best one on this thread ) I would say that IF newer cars being classified come stock with 7" rims Then we need to look at making a change so that the class can continue to grow with newer cars being classified. That would be the turning point for me. I do not think that a large number of current or future members are not joining ITB because of the wheel widht rule. I would argue that the wheel width rule has nothing to do with the growth of the class other than those affected by the re-classification process

7. Do you force change and evolution (like stock class Solo) or do you try and archive and protect every driver and every car? In my opinion we should only force change and evolution if we start to see a large decline in participation in ITB and a lack of new car builds. This year ITB is as strong in my region as it has been for the last 7 or 8 years and again this year several new cars have been built across the country that I am awaire of. To me the class seems healthy as is.



Sephen

I'll be honest I am not going to write to the ITAC until AFTER they ask for feedback because for some reason they decide they want to change the rules that have been in place for some 25+ years. Until that time how would I know they are even interested in changing the rules and/or expecting a letter?

[Andy Bettencourt]

JJJ,

I am also going to tell you that you are wrong. What happened was simple. A member of the ITAC, developed a 'process'. That process was designed for new car classifications because there was no set way to do things. Call it an early effort to be consistant and repeatable. Darin Jordan deserves much credit for this.

We then applied the process to the category to see what stuck out. It was no surprise to anyone that the overdogs were too light for the bogies and the underdogs were too heavy. A BROAD sweep of the category (anything over or under by 100lbs was looked at) showed some bad situations - on the plus and minus sides. So the great realignment 'reset' those cars to exactly how they would have been if they were classes 'newly' at that moment in time because they were so far out of whack. The process wouldn't have been as effective as it was if the outliers weren't measured by the same stick to bring everyone to center so we could move forward as a category. It had NOTHING to do with direct on-track performance.

Greg,

The only flaw I see in your thought process is that we would have in a few years what we have now - and had 5 years ago. What if in 5 years 15x7's are in short supply? What if SM decides 16x8 is the spec wheel? Under the assumption that the supply of wheels is dynamic, why not just allow anything that meets the fitament rules?

Not saying that is what I would like to do, just saying that it might be the best long-term solution...and might be the worst short term solution as well. Is a happy medium the right thing or do we just rip the band-aid off really fast in hopes of no long-term scars?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Stephen,

Why is your opinion different if a car came with 7" wheels stock? You say that on one hand and on the other you state, with no reservations, that "If we change the rules it should have nothing to do with availability or cost for the members regardless on how many are affected."

The only reason I could see you wanting a change based on stock sizes WOULD be availablility (like, I already HAVE them) and cost (like, I already HAVE them).

[shwah]

JJJ,
Is a happy medium the right thing or do we just rip the band-aid off really fast in hopes of no long-term scars?

If a change were made - don't pussy-foot around it. Rip away. The only way any new wounds created will heal is over time. The sooner done, the sooner healed.

[JoshS]

The only "Reason or argument" that has been posted in this thread (In my opinion) for 7" wheels would be for cars that come STOCK with 7" rims.

I mentioned it earlier in this thread, but I'll say it again -- I think this is a different issue, and can be addressed in a different way.

I think there's plenty of good reasons to explicitly allow any STOCK part to be used in IT, even if it's in violation of some other rule. So if an ITB car came from the factory with a 7" wheel, then the factory wheel (not any wheel in that size, but specifically, the factory wheel) should be allowed. Aftermarket parts would have to abide by the "authorized modifications" provisions of the ITCS. That is specifically the title of section 9.1.3.D. I would support a rule change proposal to that effect.

Now, should the authorized modifications allow something wider than 6" is a different question.

[Greg Amy]

What if we just removed the width rule all together in IT?

JJJ,
Under the assumption that the supply of wheels is dynamic, why not just allow anything that meets the fitament rules?

A reasonable suggestion. I think you'd find that the vast majority of the cars currently classified in ITB/C could not fit a whole helluva lot more wheel/tire in their bodies within the other rules anyway. Opening the wheel rules (again, done Long Ago for cost-containment) would be unlikely to result in significant improvements in performance (and if a VW Rabbit GTi guy wants to run 22x8 blingers under there, hell, I say knock yerself out... ).

I suggest, however, that as we move on to new(er) cars being classified, you'll find that the potential ITB cars can and do come with 15" wheels at a minimum (are modern cars still shipped with 14" wheels?), and very likely 7" diameters stock. This is purely a "gut" feel, I have not done even a hint of research on that... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree on the diameter comment but I think 7" wide rims are not typical of the cars that make up ITB (grocery getters).

[jjjanos]

You have a definition of "competition adjustment" that's very different in important functional ways but that's fine, as long as the audience understands the distinctions I'm trying to make.

I understand the distinction. I consider it a distinction without a difference.

I was charged by the ITAC to review a bunch of ITB cars against current practices, most of which I have absolutely no understanding of in terms of their on-track performance.

Which, IMO, is close to, but quite a non-competition adjustment. Applying current practice in a uniform, blind manner is content neutral. Applying the current practice to a subset of cars begins to smell of adjustments. Why were those cars selected? I suspect because they were "out of whack," and that's where subjectivity enters and becomes a comp adjustment. They were picked because their current potential/actual performance was felt to be out of line with their true/process potential.

I'm not saying that hitting the cars most of whack first is the wrong approach. Resources get allocated to the greatest need. It's the implication that the list is an ending point.

I totally understand your point about obvserved performance contributing to the "motivations" for looking at problematic cases but there's a world of difference between that and using those differences as evidence to actually change race weights (for example).

The differences have to be used - either upfront or in the back of the mind - when adjusting the process (see FWD revised adder) - if only as a sanity check. Example - Aren't different engine makes given different HP% gains in IT trim? Those numbers came from somewhere and if Studebaker came out with a new engine that allows for quantum leap in HP gain in IT trim, I'd be shocked if the old 10% gain assumption continued to be used in the face of a 25% gain for a new generation of engines.

Members perceive inequalities and ask us to "do something." All we can do is review make/model specs to see if they align to current, consistent practices and make a recommendation to the Board for a change if they don't.

I've got no problem with the Von Braun approach where someone pushes the button and doesn't care where it comes down, but people with influence have been discussing changing the FWD adder and including a torque adder and ..... At that point, the operator stops pushing the button and starts to pick the target. Moreover, the selection of the values for the new, hypothetical inputs will be guided and determined by the goal of preserving overall category balance. And I encourage such guidance.

It's the Holy than Thou/we're better than Prod & GT because we don't do what they do that bothers me, because, ultimate IT does and will do that. The real difference is that IT does it better and that's entirely to the credit of the ITAC. Moreover, if/when the ITAC gets a better handle on torque or aero or FWD or KERS, they'll still do it better.

In this particular case - drivers forced to buy new wheels because of class movement - allowing a spec line adjustment would neither have been a competition adjustment, a denouncement of uniformity, nor the slippery slope. It would have been a narrow and limited exception applying common sense to an arbitrary standard and it could have been uniformly applied. I.e. Only to cars that moved classes. Instead, we had adherence to the standard for the sake of the standard.

Stuff

I'll acknowledge that I'm wrong and the primary motivation was to provide consistency. That the adjustment resulted in overdogs getting fat and underdogs getting light and the unwashed middle getting little of anything suggests that the codification had to guided by what was occuring on track.

The fact that the end result was so good tells me a great deal of thought went into codification, particularly because once this was emplaced, recalibration wasn't going to happen. To get it this right that specific attributes needed to have approximate factors without real world observations implies far too much luck. The adders weren't just picked at random - something guided them.

[StephenB]

Stephen,

Why is your opinion different if a car came with 7" wheels stock? You say that on one hand and on the other you state, with no reservations, that "If we change the rules it should have nothing to do with availability or cost for the members regardless on how many are affected."

The only reason I could see you wanting a change based on stock sizes WOULD be availablility (like, I already HAVE them) and cost (like, I already HAVE them).

Andy,

I think Josh basically answered it for me. I think that the Purpose of IT is for cars to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition. To that end, cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer's specification except for modifications permitted by these rules.

That is the only reason that I think we would ever need to change to a 7" rule. NOT because of Cost or availability. Again if was because of Cost or Availabilty I should be able to change brake calipers due to the Availability of them. Basically the purpose and intent of the IT catagory superseeds (sp) the rule limitations of 6" on cars that are being classified that come from the factory with 7".

Hope this clarifies and you see why I think it is different.
Stephen

[Knestis]

>> Applying the current practice to a subset of cars begins to smell of adjustments. Why were those cars selected? I suspect because they were "out of whack," and that's where subjectivity enters and becomes a comp adjustment.

Ah - good question. For the ITB data collection effort, we started with the cars we could find evidence were being raced, but the list grew to include pretty much the entire class, less a handful of real oddballs. "How many" get submitted to the Board for approval is still an open question. We are obligated to do any that members request and, while it's one popular position within the ITAC that we should do a wholesale Great Realignment II, we're not sure the Board will be receptive to the idea.

The "which ones" question might indeed be answered based on how much they are "out of whack" but it's important to remember that we define that based on the difference between the current spec weight and that derived from the current process - not (I repeat, NOT) based on on-track performance. In some cases, this is a LOT - 600, 700, or as much as 900+ pounds in one case. Most of those that are off by more than 200# are too heavy and of course, if the difference is enough, it's an indicator of a candidate for a move to C.

Note that B is kind of a special case because it didn't get a lot of attention during the GR, currently popular cars span a range of generations of technology, and it doesn't take a lot of variability for cars to slop into the specification envelope defined for C.

K

[rlward]

Andy, Rip it off. A fitment rule should pass the test of time if you think about it...regardles of car or class now nad in th future,even if a car happened to b reclassified.

Steven, if cost and availability are not a concern, then your logic would put a strain on all racers in all venues. Cost and availability is a concern to all sanctioning bodies, just look at formula 1.

As far a brake caliper availability, rules allow update or backdate of components, that would include brakes i think.

If the rules are to change, the fitment approach is the best answer for all. It will survive the test of time witout further changes to the rules. An if so, BRING IT ON, write the letter and get on with it! We will all get over the impact in a short time and go on with our planning.

Better to do it now than to wait. Write the letters to bring the wheel issue to a head..Or is this the letter writing place. Fitment rules already existand that would put an end to this seemingly endless debate.

[lateapex911]

Rodger...seriously, don't ignore my questions...what wheel did you run in ITA, and what is the stock size for the car?

[Ed Funk]

Man, I've tried to stay out of this thread! I'm much better at cracking wise than at making logical arguments (at least that's what the previous Mrs. Funk said).

After a brief perusal of the cars listed in B and C, there are very few that came from the factory with more than 6" wheels, so run stock or run 6", where's the logical argument (note the word logical) to do anything else?

If we're to start discussing what's good for me is good for the class is good for the category, that is a BS argument. If you can logically prove otherwise, I'd love to run a single cam VTEC in the C car rather than the CVCC, it'd be cheaper, more HP, easier. ----and that'd be good for me and by extension good for the class and the category, maybe even the club and the whole world! Crap!---there I go cracking wise again!

[Knestis]

The most current car that I can remember talking about for ITB is the Honda Fit. It appears to come stock with 15x6" wheels, although the new model may have 16x6.

As is typical, we have confounding (if not conflicting) arguments in the discussion. At this point, I'm tempted by Josh's reminder that folks SHOULD be allowed to run what came on their car, and that wheel allowances - like all other modifications - should be allowed and not required. Heck - a very liberal interpretation of the CURRENT rule might well allow a person to run stock wheels larger than 6" in ITB, if the car came with them. That issue can go away with a single line in the rules.

Beyond that - ignoring the availability issue which I personally think is a non-problem, and is even less so if "stock size" is allowed - the only folks in a bind currently are those whose cars have been moved. And only then, specifically from A to B since that's the only next-door class combination where the dimension allowance changes. I'm afraid that I can NOT see the big picture logic of making a substantive change to the entire category to accommodate those limited number of cases, which to my way of thinking leaves only the option of considering "transitional" rules to ease the pain for a few.

My personal concern there is that I've been in the Club long enough to know that once that barn door is open, the horses are headed to the horizon. That kind of freedom will be cited (perhaps rightly so) as rationale for other exceptions, and gifts given are typically very hard to take away. But let's try:

Rodger - Which would you prefer to ease your transition...?

1. Your car will be dual listed for two years - and only two years - in A and B, and you can run either within the existing rules

2. Your car will be allowed to run 7" wheels for two years, and only two years, with additional weight to be determined by the ITAC

K

[gran racing]

Roger, I understand your frustration with having to source new wheels, I really do. I'm not so sure that your suggestions are truly what's best for the class though. For example:

If the rules are to change, the fitment approach is the best answer for all.

ONLY if the classification process takes into consideration what cars can fit what. Part of the argument here is some of the newer cars in ITB came with 7" rims. I know for a fact many came with 5.5" rims. Just by knowing that it's not so unlogical to reason that a car which came with 7" rims would be able to fit a larger tire using the fender rule than the one that came with stock 5.5" rims. So now some cars are receiving an advantage over others since that is not part of the current classification process. Oh, best of luck to the ITAC collecting all of that data.

What's the true motivation for this proposed rule change? Is it just to make the transition easier for cars moving from ITA to ITB? That's the only reason I can imagine. It's not to save the class as a whole money, cause in reality it will have the opposite effect. Is it for years in the future for cars that we haven't even classed yet? If so, what specific cars are they, what's the OEM rim widths, and the bolt patterns? How many cars in ITB came stock with 7" wide rims or greater?

what is the stock size for the car?

A quick google search said 6" wide. The diameters varied on the Charger depending upon the year.

[quadzjr]

I just bought a set of 14x6 wheels for my new ITB car! Leave the rules how they are.. I don't want to buy another set before I get to use the ones I just bought!

[ebassett]

Hi guys,

I am new to IT but just wanted to ask a question. Doesn't it really boil down to where the rubber meets the road? Doesn't a 225 14x6 have the same contact patch as a 225 15x7? Why not have a tire width limit instead of a wheel limit?

[gran racing]

Doesn't a 225 14x6 have the same contact patch as a 225 15x7?

They do not have the same contact patch. On a 6" rim using Hoosiers, the tire is "forced" onto the rim causing the contact patch to be not as optimal as using a 7" or 8" wide rim.

Why not have a tire width limit instead of a wheel limit?

Keep in mind that different tire manufactures have different widths for even the same tire description. For example, compare a Hoosier 225 tire with a the older RA-1 Toyos. It has always seemed a bit odd to me. Guess it's like how even the same size shoe or pant size is different between manufactures.

[rlward]

Jake, I ran one set of 7" rims I had just purchased for 2 races (1 weekend) My other set was 6" OEM rims.
K, either of your suggestions hold any value unless I only race fro 2 more years or my current wheels break.
DaveOther cars in ITB are receiving an advantage now as I am runing 20# wheels and more than 50#over weight.
Steve That is exactly my point. I id buy wheels and then all of a sudden, I'm in ITB and can only find heavy wheels in 6" I have found another set of OEM round boat anchors.
In order to keep updated, our rules in general should address the maket changes. Otherwise we will rule ourselves out of existance. If a car came with wider wheels than the current rules allow, are we not ruling towards a potential heel failure? Keep in mind wheel sizes are engineered for a cars weight by the manufacturer. When we race we put additional stress on the entire car and in aprticular to the tirs and wheels.
This whol thing about sizes seem cotrarry to common sense. The fitment cocept still seems the most consistant, yet is still adaptable to any changes whatever happens in the future.

While I started this discussion based on my particular needs, the comments posted have led me to believe a change may be possible without upsetting the apple cart too much. We need to have more foresight than hindsight. My fear is no different than anyone elses except I have already been bitten once. No one wants to buy or have a supply of wheels that wont be anadvantage for their car. I think I will defer the purchase of another set of wheels untill later and see if there is a glimmer of hope that foresight will prevail.
I want to thank everyone for their comments. To those that agree the rule should be revised, thank you for supporting this. To those opposed, thank you for your thoughtfull insight of the other side of the issue. To those that just read but did not comment, now is your turn to voice your opinion.

[Knestis]

Thanks, Rodger - that's helpful information.

K