Again, it's not about you. It's the way I have been trained to look at things:
- although I admit that my orientation creates certain biases.
[/b]
Yes, and in this case your biases are incorrect. You are interpreting what i am saying based on your own biases, and those biases are leading to an incorrect conclusion. As i stated, this has nothing to do w/ a benefit for me, other than the benefit of making IT more healthy for everyone, me included.
Again, the ITAC/CRB has no obligation to any subgroup of racers (make, model, geography, etc.) to help them be competitive. Affording a light racing wheel for less money than might otherwise be obtained IS helping them be competitive. If a rule truly impacts everyone equally, then of course this isn't an issue but that doesn't happen very often, even in cases where arguments are presented as being for the good of the category.
[/b]
As Josh and i noted, the rule is neutral. It does not make one group more competitive, and simply allows *all* the B and C racers to take advantage of greater supply of appropriate wheels.
Oh, no question! And I didn't mean to imply that I believed otherwise. My point is that arguments for the 15x7 option were based on the much less available 15x6 size, when 14x6 is a still viable solution
currently allowed by the rules. I meant what I said (in a roundabout fashion, perhaps) - that the 14x6 is more common than either the 15x6 or 14x7.If the justification for the 15x7 is "can't find 15x6," then the first solution should be to use 14x6s, rather than changing the rules to allow 15x7, since it is ALLOWED to go +1, not REQUIRED.
[/b]
Oh, you did very much imply that 14x6 was the most available. Yes, it is instead 15x7, which is very much part of this discussion, since we are discussing allowing 7" rims for B and C.
I disagree that the supply of the 14x6 rims is enough for the B and C racers. It is not, as my research in my previous post clearly pointed it. It is only marginally greater than the supply of 15x6 and 14x7. Also, my point is not one size versus another, as you seem to bring up, but simply that B and C taking advantage of the greater supply of 7" rims (15x7) will encourage more racers to participate in a less expensive manner.
PS - If any of you camel nose "deniers" are out there, make note of how the recent allowance of increased diameter wheels in IT is being used as justification for an increase in width - not even a year out. THAT'S rules creep at work and it's making me regret taking a pro position on that allowance, after the fact...
[/b]
Again, you need to read what i have said. I did NOT use the increased diameter as a justification for this change. This change is valid on it's own right. What i was saying is that the arguments used for increased diameter apply here, since they are both about supply (the same supply, in fact).
PS: Scot- Do you think that the budget racer is going that much faster because thier wheel weighs 5lbs less??? I don't buy it. I run the same lap times with heavy wheels or light wheels, I picked my wheels because they look "pimp" not because of weight, but hey, maybe thats why we are top 5 and not top dog...
[/b]
Yes, he definitely is faster, if every wheel is 5lbs lighter. We are talking improved acceleration, and lower unsprung weight...concepts that are unequivocally performance enhancing. Even more so for the big-budget racer that is running 8lb wheels vs low-budget racer that has been relegated to 18-20lb stock wheels (10lb difference/corner).
And Kirk, please quit trying hide behind the "we do not ensure the competiveness of any car" argument. It does not apply. This is not about a particular car. This increases the supply for everyone, not a particular car, sub-group, region, ...
I will give you that this proposal attempts to level the field between the big-budget and the low-budget racer, but that is an admirable goal, and no amount of your trying to *SPIN* it as "we do not ensure the competitiveness ..." will change that.
Scot Mac - Mac Motorsports
88 ITB Fiero #41, SFR, NWR, ICSCC
Bookmarks