Wheel width, ITB, again

[rlward]

Does anyone think it might be time to revisit wheel width for ITB again? I have not ben able to find a set of 15 X 6 with 5 X 100 bolt pattern that weigh less than 20lbs.

It seems to me the argument for or against should be based on what is currently available in the marketplace without having to have custom rims made or looking at wrecking yards. I don't know about other bolt patterns or if any body else is having a hard time finding what they need.

It also seems that as cars are reclassifed, the complete car should be moved including the wheel size and the rules modified as needed by the reclasification.

Although I could find someone to make 15 x 6 wheels, the cost was $240/wheel for an aluminum wheel. Some may find this price acceptable, but I don't. Makers of wheels tend to change with the times and sizes that don't sell are discontinued.

Thoughts?

[RSTPerformance]

Does anyone think it might be time to revisit wheel width for ITB again? I have not ben able to find a set of 15 X 6 with 5 X 100 bolt pattern that weigh less than 20lbs.

It seems to me the argument for or against should be based on what is currently available in the marketplace without having to have custom rims made or looking at wrecking yards. I don't know about other bolt patterns or if any body else is having a hard time finding what they need.

It also seems that as cars are reclassifed, the complete car should be moved including the wheel size and the rules modified as needed by the reclasification.

Although I could find someone to make 15 x 6 wheels, the cost was $240/wheel for an aluminum wheel. Some may find this price acceptable, but I don't. Makers of wheels tend to change with the times and sizes that don't sell are discontinued.

Thoughts?

I am not a fan of changing rules like you suggest simply because several people (including myself) have an investment in the current rules set. If we constantly change to meet what the market sells then we will have to continually re-invest in something that may work just fine how it is. While cheaper for those trying to get in, it will cost you more in the long run.

We have not changed from the 14" wheel to a 15" wheel for the same reason I stated (can't afford the re-investment). I would be upset if I did buy 15X6 wheels only to have the rule change again a year later.

With all that said, I personaly don't think I would not be upset if the rule did end up changing.

Raymond "Believer in rules stability" Blethen

[StephenB]

I do not think the wheel width should increase. I do not want to have to purchase all new rims to "stay up width" the competition. Some will argue that you don't need to purchase all new rims and tires... well then why does anyone want the larger ones?

I DO think that if a car is classified that comes with a larger wider tire that is should be allowed the larger tire size and that this should be considered when it is classified.

Stephen

[Greg Amy]

I do not think the wheel width should increase. I do not want to have to purchase all new rims...

This is the common response from ITB competitors each time this issue is breached.

However, no ITB competitors have offered "My position is XXX, because I believe it's good for the class, and here's why." This is right inline with Kirk's assertion that almost all rules requests are done with a selfish motive. While there's nothing specifically wrong with that, it's not a good basis for a policy change (nor a good basis for resisting a policy change).

Look at the New Beetle topic: for all you competitors that don't want to change the rules because of selfish reasons, how do you propose anyone wishing to prep a NB for ITC resolve that situation?

So, try assuming that you're not an ITB or ITC competitor. Try assuming you do not own even one 6" wheel. Then, think about what's best for the class, best for its long-term future, and best for attracting the most competitors to your class.

Greg

[RSTPerformance]

So, try assuming that you're not an ITB or ITC competitor. Try assuming you do not own even one 6" wheel. Then, think about what's best for the class, best for its long-term future, and best for attracting the most competitors to your class.

Greg

Greg-

A good practice to attract new competitors is to change the rules to meet the current trends in the automotive market. Things like big wheels, useless wings and ground effects? However for the long term, we need to maintain some class rules stability. Changing things like wheels sizes every year or two to keep up with the "trends" could have its benefits and its negatives. So far I have not seen a negative to increasing the wheel size from 14" to 15" eventhough I have not made that change yet.

It is an interesting balance... Attract newbies and keep the old timers happy

Raymond

[Knestis]

Just Kirk talking but there's a difference between changing diameter and changing width, in terms of proximal impact on performance - particularly for heavier cars that may already be overworking tires at one end or the other.

Read Greg's post again. It's got to be about what's best for the category, and that's what the ITAC wrestles with.

K

[rlward]

Are you saying that what is good for my car is not good for the class? I thought I was a member of the class..... It is a selfish reason to let me use 7" wide rims; I can't find aftermarket 6". I was ITA and did buy 7" just months before the change to ITB was even suggested. I did have to shelve the 7". Selfish, yes. Good for the class, yes. Would anybody else benifit from moving to 7" in ITB? Yes if they could not find 6" wide in the their bolt pattern. Is there a competitive advantage, probably assuming you found lighter wheels.

No one is compelled to purchase another set of wheels just because a rule changes other than those that are moved from, say ITA, to ITB. I was, now I can't find wheels other than stock 20lb wheels.

Maybe we should look at why some people don't want to keep in line with new market trends...Maybe they are the ones that already have a good source of available wheels and they are the selfish ones! Every question put out should be first answered at home.

[StephenB]

This is the common response from ITB competitors each time this issue is breached.

However, no ITB competitors have offered "My position is XXX, because I believe it's good for the class, and here's why." This is right inline with Kirk's assertion that almost all rules requests are done with a selfish motive. While there's nothing specifically wrong with that, it's not a good basis for a policy change (nor a good basis for resisting a policy change).

Look at the New Beetle topic: for all you competitors that don't want to change the rules because of selfish reasons, how do you propose anyone wishing to prep a NB for ITC resolve that situation?

So, try assuming that you're not an ITB or ITC competitor. Try assuming you do not own even one 6" wheel. Then, think about what's best for the class, best for its long-term future, and best for attracting the most competitors to your class.

Greg

I am sorry greg but I believe I answered the original question, I had no intent to write to SCCA with the argument I wrote above. The question said Thoughts? which to me implied the poster wanted to get feedback on how it affected us AKA me and anyone else that responded.

To Answer Gregs question: (Not really a defence on why it is better for the class since I don't think I should be writing to the ITAC to defend the rules set in the GCR!) My position is to follow the GCR rules, because I believe it's good for the class, and here's why please refer to both sections A.purpose and B. Intent of section 9.1.3 in the GCR


To Answer Kirks Question:
FOLLOW THE RULES in the GCR for the Improved Touring Catagory and instead consider DUAL CLASSIFICATIONS so that members don't get hit with a huge bill/burden to continue to race with us.

As far as newer cars with bigger wheels being classified then that should get considered upon being considered for classification. again this is part of section A. Purpose and addressed in the second sentence. If the ITAC thinks it's necasary to have additional wieght added then that is up to them. A section of the GCR labeled "notes" is part of every car classified and is utilized in IT for special considerations on items offered from that factory that are "out of the norm" and could be questionable.

I do feel sympathy for the poster that started this thread because his car was reclassified. In my opinion that is the error/mistake that the ITAC and the CRB needs to consider. He should be able to run his car in ITA as he original created the car at the original specifications he built his car to. When and if the car is Dual Classed not RE-classed he could then incurr the expense of new rims if he wanted to switch classes. I agree that what the ITAC and CRB did to him is a deterent and an unfair cost that he had to incurr. My solution would be for the ITAC and CRB to fix the mistake they made and Dual Class his car.



Stephen

[Knestis]

I read in what you wrote, Stephen, that when you say "mistake" you don't just mean that others might differ in their thinking and make another decision. You are suggesting - I think - that the ITAC didn't "FOLLOW THE RULES in the GCR." Is that what you're saying and, if so, how do you think we screwed up?

K

[StephenB]

NO both the things you quoted are in very different topics in diffent paragraphs:


What I mean by "FOLLOW THE RULES" is that I think that we should continue to follow the Current Rules and not change the current wheel widths. Unless we are considering a new car that comes Stock with something different as I think I explained my personal opinion that I think best benefits the class and all members.

As far as the "error/mistake" mentioned in a later paragraph simply ment that I sympathise with the original poster because the ITAC forced him to purchase all new wheels and I think SCCA made a mistake/error that should be reconsidered. so I guess its a matter of opinion and mine is much different than the one that was made to Re-Classify cars and incurr large costs to current members rather than to dual Classify cars and give members a choice.

Sorry for the confusion,
Stephen

[gran racing]

There are several ways this topic could be viewed. In one sense, you're taking a car that was uncompetitive and putting it in a class where it has a shot. Even using 20 lb rims, it certainly has a better opportunity than in the previous class.

How many cars are being impacted? Opening up the rules to 7" rims has a much better impact on the drivers in the class.

Possibly adding extra weight to cars for using 7" rims might be an option. It will get complicated though.

Maybe cars being moved can have a dual classification for X number of years.

[924Guy]

OK, I'm gonna skip all the replies here and go back to address the orig post - 'cause I think there's a bit of wandering induced.

Inevitably when ITB wheel width comes up, it's a discussion of supply. Yet, at the same time, it tends to be a statement of "this will save me money/give better/faster options" rather than "I can't find ANYTHING that will fit, at any reasonable cost."

On that basis right there - it seems that this proposal will not be consistent with IT philosophy, no?

Alternate parts may be allowed if proof of unobtainable originals can be provided, but this usually also is applied to where only original, unmodified OEM parts are required, and aftermarket parts aren't allowed.

So here IMO we seem to fall into the category of "I can't get good aftermarket parts cheap enough." Though allowing us to race cheap certainly is a goal of IT (especially ITB cars!) - that may come at the cost of speed. I'm not talking about things like shocks, but rather, OK, let's say, dog-tooth transmissions.

Seems to me you yourself have stated that you do have options - heavy stock rims, or expensive aftermarket rims - they're just not attractive to you.

And this is where we get into the old "you made that choice when you built the car."

I too have a former ITA car that moved to ITB; we too had to pitch a bunch of 7" readily-available old factory rims (from 944s) to use only 924-specific, harder-to-find rims. And I know that, like you, my aftermarket options are really going to suck. In fact, they'll be worse than yours, since my bolt pattern is Porsche-specific, and no-one's buying Porsche rims in 15" diameters, let alone 6" wide!!!

I have other things about my car that suck; for example, while you guys can put any spring rate on your struts you want, I have to pay at least $400 for a pair of racing-appropriate torsion bars for the rear of the car, and in fact mine cost $600+ since they're custom - required to get the rate I needed.

That's the bed we've all individually made, and now we can lie in it... or move to a different car. Personally, I'm happy to stay in B, skinny wheels and all!!!

[rlward]

1. When I threw this question out, I was wanting to get some feedback one the idea of considering changes to the rules based on the marketplace and availablility of parts. We have allowed changes base on parts and system developments before. Take the open ECU issue. It has far more serious implications on IT than the question of 7 " rims in ITB. Yet, because there are many drivers running FI, it passed the muster really quite easily. I must have been because the marketplace made somthing available that made working on your OEM ECU outdated or harder or more expensive.

2. I believe when the issue of ITA cars being reclassified came up about 2 years ago, there was mention that there was no competitive advantage of 7" over 6" rims. If that be the case, then to allow 7" in ITB would not affect the status of any other driver/car because it would not put the pressure on to go out and buy another set of whels.

I would suggest a test, using the same tires and same car/driver to verify no advantage is observed. I run SM Hoosiers, they fit both 6" and 7" rims. The Club does tire tests every year I think. We could run this test with both FWD and RWD cars to gain some data and review the results. Of course pressures would have to be adjusted with trial runs to gain the set data for the 2 different sizes.

This, cosidering all the responses to my original inquiry might be the best way to see through everyone's opinion and gain real data on which to base our rule making process.

[924Guy]

2. I believe when the issue of ITA cars being reclassified came up about 2 years ago, there was mention that there was no competitive advantage of 7" over 6" rims. If that be the case, then to allow 7" in ITB would not affect the status of any other driver/car because it would not put the pressure on to go out and buy another set of whels.

I would suggest a test, using the same tires and same car/driver to verify no advantage is observed. I run SM Hoosiers, they fit both 6" and 7" rims. The Club does tire tests every year I think. We could run this test with both FWD and RWD cars to gain some data and review the results. Of course pressures would have to be adjusted with trial runs to gain the set data for the 2 different sizes.

I would definitely support this... as mentioned, found myself in the same boat - and we too are running the same size tire on 6's as we did on 7's. Don't know if it made the car slower or faster; I got a whole lot faster as a driver in the meantime, with basically no changes to the car, so can't say for myself.

Hmmm... for that matter, we do happen to have 7" rims around probably still too...

Then we'd need someone to either swap rubber back and forth on rims, or get two identical sets of new tires to mount up and compare.

I'd be willing to volunteer my services (car and driver) at a reasonably local track that I know well enough (Waterford would be an EASY way to line this up, cheap, on a practice day - $20 per session!), etc, to pursue this - at least provide the data for a RWD car. But I can't afford to buy two new sets of rubbers - not in my budget, I'm not even really running this year... Mid-O would be my other choice, but it is more expensive to get there and run...

EDIT - added bonus, I DO have a full-blown data system to provide quite accurate detailed results too...

[gran racing]

It's not that simple to just test on one track. Some tracks will work better with a 205 vs 225, others the opposite. Same general thing with the overall contact patch provided using a 225 on a 6" vs 7" rim. For handling tracks, I'd sure take the 7" rim. I know a while back Tom Fowler from OMP Motorsports had done some testing at Road Atlanta using different tire widths. His conclusion was that the wider tire (225s) provided the best results.

Do you think there would be a difference between a 5" and 6" rim? What about a 4" and 6" rim? I'm sure the graph wouldn't be linear, but there have to be points on it where the gains and losses hit more. Even for the sake of perception, ITB drivers will feel the need to purchase the wider rims. It sucks for existing racers in ITB. I too came from ITA and understand that this wheel change makes it more complicated than just swapping out an A for a B using vinyl.

[tom91ita]

i do sort of agree with Vaughn that some of the comments are muddying the waters. but some of my comments were geared towards what do we do for newer cars?

for newer entrants that are not stuck in the 80's for a chassis like some of us, i think there must be newer cars (e.g., that have done their 5 year required stint in showroom stock) that had rims wider than 6" that should be considered.

since there are several versions of the dodge charger/shelby in ITB, it would be simpler if the VIN rule could let him use the 4 bolt hubs from the "sister" cars.

and one other thing that might get us further into this is the fact that Chrysler Dodge as we recently knew it is going away. flexibility of parts might become more pressing because of the bankruptcy.

hope this does not come across as argumentative but just trying to toss out ideas since some of what was the "norm" will be changing.

tom

p.s. i will get my note out about AWD and turbos (e.g., i see one liter turbos in ITB's future) in the next day or so as well. i might toss in a comment about allowing OEM wheel widths in IT.

[JoshS]

p.s. i will get my note out about AWD and turbos (e.g., i see one liter turbos in ITB's future) in the next day or so as well. i might toss in a comment about allowing OEM wheel widths in IT.

What I would like to see regarding OEM parts is a blanket statement early in the ITCS that states that STANDARD EQUIPMENT from a listed car may be used, but any aftermarket parts, optional factory equipment, or dealer-installed equipment must adhere to the specifications in the main body of the ITCS.

[Knestis]

I'd respectfully suggest that it's not possible to "prove" that the 7" wheels don't provide an advantage over 6" wheels. And even if repeatable tests demonstrated that it was the case, the results won't generalize to accommodate all of the other potential variables (e.g., fender width, cars with relatively high race weights).

I'll ignore the question of PERCEPTIONS of competitive advantage. That's another ball of worms.

There just aren't any "good" answers. They all seem "obvious" but only if viewed from one perspective or another. The clearest answer I've heard on the subject is that allowing 7" wheels is a money-saving answer if and only if that's all you've got. Otherwise it's a money spender.

K

[shwah]

1. When I threw this question out, I was wanting to get some feedback one the idea of considering changes to the rules based on the marketplace and availablility of parts. We have allowed changes base on parts and system developments before. Take the open ECU issue. It has far more serious implications on IT than the question of 7 " rims in ITB. Yet, because there are many drivers running FI, it passed the muster really quite easily. I must have been because the marketplace made somthing available that made working on your OEM ECU outdated or harder or more expensive.

2. I believe when the issue of ITA cars being reclassified came up about 2 years ago, there was mention that there was no competitive advantage of 7" over 6" rims. If that be the case, then to allow 7" in ITB would not affect the status of any other driver/car because it would not put the pressure on to go out and buy another set of whels.

I would suggest a test, using the same tires and same car/driver to verify no advantage is observed. I run SM Hoosiers, they fit both 6" and 7" rims. The Club does tire tests every year I think. We could run this test with both FWD and RWD cars to gain some data and review the results. Of course pressures would have to be adjusted with trial runs to gain the set data for the 2 different sizes.

This, cosidering all the responses to my original inquiry might be the best way to see through everyone's opinion and gain real data on which to base our rule making process.

The ECU issue is a totally different deal. What we have there is making the best of a bad situation created with a badly written/drafted rule. There were two rule steps to get here. Not relevant to this situation at all.

I certainly would not view the results of one test at one track with one driver as evidence either way on this issue.

I don't have any problem going to 7" wheels. I'll start shopping for some tomorrow if that is where we end up - because I do believe they represent a performance improvement, and my tire guy will like not stuffing 225/45 tires on my 6" wheels. HOWEVER. The argument that they are not available at reasonable prices does not hold water to me, especially in 5x100 bolt patterns.

All the VR6 VWs use that bolt pattern, and the first generation of them had 15" wheels.
All the 98-04/5 8 valve VWs came with 15x6 alloys.
You can buy custom configured 15x6 wheels from Compomotive if you like. In 18#, 17.2#, and others with unlisted weight.
Spin Werks will make custom wheels as well. They are in the $200/ea range last I checked on 13x6 sizes for 9# wheels, I imagine they can field a competitive 15" weight also.

The real question that needs to be discussed is justification beyond that it is harder for you to get what you want for a deal. Not all that long ago, I would never have expected the allowance for 15" wheels on any car that had smaller wheels stock, but we have that now. (of course as noted in the other thread, we now have some cars int eh 6" wide classes with larger oem sizes and no stock 16" options that are narrow enough. Now those guys may have more argument - 16x6 - 5x100....).

Greg pointed out that a common response is that folks have already invested in 6" wide rolling stock, and how that is a natural selfish reaction. Well I guess my response is selfish in that I don't want to make a change that may penlaize some, or many, or all of my current compeititors for the benefit of very few.

I would love to get 7" wheels, because I could then share wheel inventory with my prod car racing friends, but I'm not convinced there is a valid argument yet. I'm also not awfully steadfast in that position. I am close enough to the middle to be swayed.

[ekim952522000]

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