Wheel width, ITB, again

[jjjanos]

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?

Questionable. We allow a large number of modifications that do not strictly fall in the category of "modifications to those useful and necessary to build a safe race car."

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.

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!!!

Which somewhat runs contrary to the old "you made that choice when you built the car." People built the car to run in a different class and purchased wheels based on that classification. The Club, changed the rules on them.

For these tweener cars that saw their wheels outlawed, I see no harm in duel classification (run the old class and be uncompetitive, but save on wheels). Nor do I see rules creep/special treatment in allowing these cars to run the wheels they ran in their old class - provided they are not dual classified.

[lateapex911]

Historically, the ITAC gets requests like this regularly, and it always seems that there are options. But the writer of the request rejects them for some reason, or isn't aware of them.

This case is troublesome merely because the car has been reclassed. Yea, that's the dick sandwich! Now, lots of guys, (Like Dave Gran) jumped up for joy when they got reclassed. But others who are racing on true shoestrings, find the change troublesome. Usually, there is revenue to be gained from the sale of the old 7" rims to ITA drivers...but, in some cases, the car is so unique the rims have no market. (offset, bolt patter combos)

For this specific reason, I'd support a dual listing of the car for a certain period, say three years.

Otherwise, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. And the many already have 8 - 16 rims in the 6" width, plus tires, etc. To change over the entire class is excessive.

Also, Rojer, I can not remember any member of the ITAC stating that there is no difference in performance potential between the widths, or anyone stating that it didn't matter, as you suggest.

[shwah]

One thing that I am absolutely against would be some sort of spec line allowance. If a change is made, make it for the whole class.

I can see the argument for a 'sunset' period when a car is moved from A to B that allows dual classification.

Also, if a change were made under the guise of availability of products, it should move right to 7", not 6.5". While 6.5 is pretty common for 15" wheels, and obtainable in 16" wheels, the majority of the C and B cars are on 13 and 14, and I don't ever see 6.5 wide versions of those.

[chuck baader]

For purely selfish reasons I would like to see 7" in ITB, since the car I am building came OEM with 14 X 7 wheels Chuck

[Knestis]

One thing that I am absolutely against would be some sort of spec line allowance. If a change is made, make it for the whole class.

I can see the argument for a 'sunset' period when a car is moved from A to B that allows dual classification.

Also, if a change were made under the guise of availability of products, it should move right to 7", not 6.5". While 6.5 is pretty common for 15" wheels, and obtainable in 16" wheels, the majority of the C and B cars are on 13 and 14, and I don't ever see 6.5 wide versions of those.

Any line-item exemption or allowance is going to be a very hard sell under current practices.

Like Josh, I'm sensitive to the fact that drivers' lives get complicated by class change. That whole business is complicated because when something like the MR2-to-B initiative gets proposed, there's always folks advocating for both choices - moving and not moving. If we get a request for a move and it makes sense based on our practices and processes, should we do it simply because it looks right on paper? Or should we lean heavily on input letters from drivers? From only those owning examples of the car getting moved...?

The same kind of conflict extends to other follow-on options like grandfathering in 7" wheels or allowing dual classification for cars that get moved. Do we then entertain any and all requests for moves, knowing that each will come with those same allowances? Do we grant the allowances more broadly when someone makes a pitch that, regardless of the circumstances that led to the situation, having 7" wheels is perceived as a competitive advantage?

PERSONALLY I feel very strongly that upsetting the category apple cart with special cases must be done VERY cautiously, for a lot of reasons - Number One being that the members tell us that consistency is a favorite aspect of IT.

K

[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

[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

[Knestis]

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

You infer correctly. I'm just not there. (Maybe add a "yet" to that statement.)

That's the THIRD problem in the mix and I can't make the benefit/cost math work out in a way that I can support it. I think we may be headed that direction but I don't think it's a pervasive enough problem yet, to warrant that large of a change.

K

[GKR_17]

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.

I agree with the concept, but be careful - with wording like that it could be argued that the ABS systems don't have to be diabled.

[Knestis]

I agree with the concept, but be careful - with wording like that it could be argued that the ABS systems don't have to be diabled.

Looking at the even bigger picture, I've believed that we should be allowed to keep ABS since I came back to the game 5 years ago. That's another conversation though, and I don't worry about the required language in that respect.


EDIT - On dual classification more generally, I just think it's a bad idea. Every time it comes up, it's proposed as a solution to problem being experienced by a small number of cases. Want to double dip? Ask your region and they'll find a way to take your money. Hurt by a reclassification? I feel for you but, while we might have an obligation to ease the transition, we can't let individual issues stand in the way of a cohesive category.

If we DC a car that gets moved, we create two revised ITCS entries (one in each class) following review). If it's OK to DC a car in that kind of case, it should be OK to DC a tweener, right? We've got lots of potential tweeners. If I see a MkIII Golf in my mirrors right now, I can be sure it's in my class. But it's a potential tweener, so that might be a C car. And what if the reason my particular car is a tweener is that I weigh 400# (or 120# for that matter)? Dual classify my car so I don't have to add a bunch of ballast, or because I can't get to the class minimum.

And we've already suggested that a car that's dual classified might differ not just in weight, but in wheel size. And the (ugh) e36 example adds "restrictor" to that list. How about dual classification for "showroom stock" drivetrains? (Don't laugh: It's been mentioned.)

It's a first principle of our whole approach that there is a "right" classification and weight for each car, based on assumptions and practices applied by the ITAC. To suggest that there are TWO equally right answers flys in the face of that, to my way of thinking. Yeah, some of them are close ot the line but that's not enough of a rationale for the additional confusion. And yes - I AM projecting how the next iteration of that thinking will manifest itself. (See also, NASA PT.)

K

[JoshS]

Looking at the even bigger picture, I've believed that we should be allowed to keep ABS since I came back to the game 5 years ago. That's another conversation though, and I don't worry about the required language in that respect.

Me too. It would probably get an adder in some classes (because cars with ABS might brake "better than the norm.") Different than the norm is the baseline requirement for an adder.

I recently made a list of all of the things in the ITCS that are "must" rules as opposed to "may" rules. There really aren't that many that are performance-related and I think it would be good to try to minimize them.

In case you are curious as I was, those rules are below. In all of these cases it can be imagined that some cars in their stock trim might not meet the specifications of the rule. In a perfect world, these would all be amended "unless configured this way from the factory" and things that have a performance advantage, if really a big difference from the class norm, would qualify for an adder.

4.f, 6.c: Wheel speed sensors disconnected (traction control, ABS)
5.a.1: Min ride height 5"
5.b.1, 5.b.2: shocks/struts: max 2 adjustments, no RR, no adjustments while car in motion
5.b.3: No two-part coil springs
5.c.1: Traction bars must be one piece
7.a.1, 7.a.6: Wheel diameter & width
7.a.4: Tread must be under fender
8.b: Front spoiler dimensions/openings
8.c: Nothing lower than wheel

And safety-related ones, which I think should be moved to from the ITCS to the core GCR:
8.f: Convertible tops removed, hardtop mounts replaced, sunroofs secured/removed
9.a: Driver's seat replaced with racing seat
9.b: No wood steering wheels
10.c: Airbags disarmed

[Bill Miller]

Why am I letting myself get sucked into this again???

It's a first principle of our whole approach that there is a "right" classification and weight for each car, based on assumptions and practices applied by the ITAC. To suggest that there are TWO equally right answers flys in the face of that, to my way of thinking. Yeah, some of them are close ot the line but that's not enough of a rationale for the additional confusion. And yes - I AM projecting how the next iteration of that thinking will manifest itself. (See also, NASA PT.)

Kirk,

I respectfully disagree. I'll use the New Beetle as the example. I'll argue that the pig-heavy ITC weight (2850# IIRC) is not the 'right' weight, as evidenced by the fact that nobody is building them. Why is it that that car is viewed as not being able to make the ITB weight, when the Mk IV Jetta (which starts out heavier) is? A Mk I Rabbit GTI in ITC @ 2250# is not the 'right' weight? Why not? What makes that less 'right' [sic] than 2080# in ITB? Is it because the car has run in ITB for so long?

I used to support the idea of DC, but the more I think about it, the more I think it's probably not the best thing for the category as a whole, in the long term. I think double-dipping is actually a good thing, and has the ability to bring more people to the track. But that's one of the only real upsides I see.

As far as throwing the ITA > ITB cars a bone, I'd much rather see you let them run the 7" wheels for 2 years w/ an extra 100# penalty, than give them the 2 year DC option. One way to look at the 2 year DC option is "Hey, we're trying to help you, but if you don't want to suck it up and buy new wheels, you can spend the next 2 years running around at the back like you always did. But please keep bringing your car to the track and paying your entry fees."

I think the real people that DC causes problems for is the tech people at the track. "Wait, what class is that car running in? What's it supposed to weigh? What kind of wheels can it run?" At least if you give them the weight for 2 years, you eliminate the first question.

Either that, or just let that car run 7" wheels in ITB forever, and set the weight appropriately. The more I think about it, that's what I think is the best appoach. It eliminates all of the above questions. For the handful of cars you're talking about, it's not the end of the world to have spec line allowances. As I said before, you've already got them. See the Del Sol / MR2 rear window rule, the Quad 4 car rear brake rule, the BMW trunk mounted cell rule, etc. etc.

[dickita15]

It's a first principle of our whole approach that there is a "right" classification and weight for each car, based on assumptions and practices applied by the ITAC. To suggest that there are TWO equally right answers flys in the face of that, to my way of thinking. Yeah, some of them are close ot the line but that's not enough of a rationale for the additional confusion. And yes - I AM projecting how the next iteration of that thinking will manifest itself. (See also, NASA PT.)

K

I agree with Bill that there might not always be a right call. The ITAC are umpires, and good umpires I think, and they make the best calls they can but that does not mean the call was always right. Why not let competitors make their own call. After all both classifications comply with the process.