ITAC News.

Marty, it is a great letter. There is a lot in it. I think most was adopted actually, and all of us should have read/considered it.

The part about publishing was one of many items you raised, and we appreciate the time you put into it. If we weren't clear that we felt like the main focus, but perhaps not each and every point, of the letter was addressed by the recent rule change recommendation, my apologies.

The system is not always going to work perfectly. We are all busy people with jobs, etc. who try our best to read and consider every letter, and request made. If something gets missed, I can tell you from nearly 2 years of experience now that it is almost always oversight and not intentional.

Thanks.

And, I'd suggest a short second letter (it doesn't take long now!) requesting publication.

Jeff

Eagle7 said:
Apparently you alread did consider it. Here's my letter:



Then six weeks ago I got this email:



It was not listed in the October nor the November Fastrack.
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
Marty, it is a great letter. There is a lot in it. I think most was adopted actually, and all of us should have read/considered it.

The part about publishing was one of many items you raised, and we appreciate the time you put into it. If we weren't clear that we felt like the main focus, but perhaps not each and every point, of the letter was addressed by the recent rule change recommendation, my apologies.
Click to expand...
Seems like you're making my point Jeff. We don't know how much of what I recommended is being adopted, because y'all aren't making it public. For example, I expect that if the CRB doesn't like an ITAC weight recommendation they may still class it at a different weight (like they've done recently), with no explanation.
The system is not always going to work perfectly. We are all busy people with jobs, etc. who try our best to read and consider every letter, and request made. If something gets missed, I can tell you from nearly 2 years of experience now that it is almost always oversight and not intentional.
Click to expand...
Please don't misundertand - I very much appreciate the contribution of all those willing to serve in the club. I don't think there was any conspiracy to suppress my letter. But I do think the CRB isn't ready to raise the blinds quite yet.
And, I'd suggest a short second letter (it doesn't take long now!) requesting publication.
Click to expand...
I'll consider how to approach that when I see what the response to the first letter is.

Thanks Jeff. You're one of the good guys. :023:
 
I thought the gist of it is laid out in the CRB notice? I may be wrong.

The Ops Manual is not being published at this point; write in and request that it should be. I will vote in favor of that, but again, there are some valid policy reasons for not publishing.

I do disagree with you about the CRB guys. Something has changed over there. They have been nothing but supportive the last 9 months or so, and it is appreciated.
 
I was telling Kirk at the 13 Hour that it was a shame you guys had to do what you did in order to move this forward. It truly was the exodus I think that convinced folks something was up and needed to change.

We are back to having a supportive CRB, in large part because of what you guys did (and due to Josh's hard work at repairing our relationship with the CRB).
 
I get to be Ruf.

ruf_porsche_rgt_911_1.jpg
 
ITAC meeting 12/27/10

I apologize for not posting something last week, but having a 3-year-old around at holiday-time makes it pretty much an all-in affair!

But we did manage to have a meeting last night, and we got quite a bit accomplished, clearing 21 letters from our agenda and sending them up to the CRB for the next step. Of the 21 letters, 6 are tech bulletin recommendations for weight changes to existing listings, some of which have been the subject of years of discussion both in the ITAC and on these public forums.

We also are asking the members (in the form of a "What Do You Think?") about your thoughts on changing up the wheel diameter restrictions in IT. Feel free to start the discussion here, if you like. My personal approach would be to remove that restriction altogether, although perhaps we could open it less far, like allowing those with 17" wheels to run 16s or 15s, just as those with smaller diameters can move up. The wheel width restriction would stay in place, the brake rules would stay in place, the fender modification rules would stay in place, etc. What do you think?

The CRB will meet next week and hopefully these items will make it into the February Fastrack. Please keep your eyes peeled on or about the 20th of January. And not to worry, there are plenty more items still left on the agenda that we were not able to discuss.
 
Last edited:
You mean I can rub DUBS on my Miata now?!?! :)

Personally I think that's a good idea. opening the diameter rules would allow for a cheaper and easier way to change final drive ratios as well as to find cheaper tires. I'm a cheapskate and buy used tires & takeoffs for my STU car.. Sometimes I can find much better deals on 16 and 18" sizes vs. the 17s I usually run. If I have the choice and can plan far enough ahead, I'll also run a slightly larger diameter on a couple tracks to prevent some gearing issues in the turns.

I can imagine there are lots of older cars that run 14 and 15" wheels that would love to go to a 15 or 16" wheel simply for the tire selection out there. I would imagine options in 14" sizes are getting pretty limited, no?
 
Last edited:
thanks for the clarification. Haven't read too much on IT rules regarding that stuff.
I still see having the option to go smaller as a good thing... since final drive ratios are already open, I don't see any performance benefit to be gained by changing diameters other than fine tuning. the weights will be close enough and you can't go TOO small before you start scraping the chassis on the ground... :shrug:
 
gran racing said:
Matt, people can already go to a larger diameter rim size; just not down.
Click to expand...

Yes, up to 15". But if the car came with 15" or larger, you can't go larger than stock.

Just for reference, here's the current rule pertaining to diameter*:

Cars originally equipped with twelve (12) inch wheels may fit thirteen (13) inch wheels. Cars originally equipped with metric 365 wheels may fit fourteen (14) inch wheels, and cars originally equipped with metric 390 wheels may fit fifteen (15) inch wheels. The above-mentioned cars as well as those cars originally equipped with thirteen (13) inch or fourteen (14) inch wheels may fit up to a fifteen (15) inch wheel. Cars may not fit wheel diameters smaller than those listed on their spec line**. All other cars shall retain the wheel diameter fitted as original equipment for their make, model, and type. Cars classified in ITR may utilize any wheel diameter up to 17” or retain their stock diameter wheels if larger.

* I deleted the sentence about material just to keep it about diameter.
** The spec line shows the factory wheel sizes, at least, it's supposed to.
 
Thanks for any and all info, Josh.
Was this a member letter? Or an ITAC initiative?
If the former, what was the writers reasoning? Or if the latter, what's the ITACs thoughts on the benefits of opening the rule up?
 
It's from a letter. The request was for a specific car to be able to use a size 1" smaller than stock. We don't want to do a per-car allowance so it's either "no" or "change the rule." We got to talking about the rule, that was the genesis for the request.

I think the ITAC "generally" feels that the rule's time has passed, but naturally there's some question about whether or not this would benefit some car greatly more than its competitors. I personally doubt it but that's why we're asking all of you. We have received many letters over the years complaining about wheel availability ... one less restriction, especially if it doesn't have any significant performance effect, would seem to help. Opening up the width allowances would clearly have a performance effect for some cars more than others, but diameter?
 
Good news re: clearing the decks on those requests, Josh (et al.). Thanks.

Re: wheel diameters, I'd propose addressing width at the same time, otherwise you're not really getting at the crux of the availability problem for a lot of cars. For example, going to a 15x6 wheel over the stock 14x6 a lot of us run only makes it HARDER to find wheels.

I suppose one can argue that, even with the fenders being the real limiting factor, a wider wheel is a performance advantage but the same could be said for increasing diameter - at least in some cases. Regardless, it's all a matter of perceptions, or at most, degrees of impact. If the policy question is being hashed out, why not go all the way and ditch the width limits? If the width limits are sacred, one should ask why diameters aren't.

K

EDIT - Or shift gears a bit and limit the measured section width of the tire, if we're worried that some make/model options are "tire width friendly."
 
I sure hope the wheel width rule isn't changed across the board. I'd most certainly see a performance benefit to going to a wider rim and this would impact many people.
 
going to a wider wheel can potentially increase the contact patch of the tire, diameter does not.

a larger diameter can change some deflection attributes i'd guess, but my main question should this pass would be what's the lighter combination.....ie a 225/45/16 or a 225/50/15?
 
Was ABS talked about? I am about to spend hundreds of dollars trying to figure out how to disable it. I am told you cannot disable it without having the computer trip the car into limp mode... I have not proven this to be true on my rx8 but I am 100% sure my jaguar goes into a limp mode if the ABS is disabled. Rules are rules so I know I picked my wart however I am going to be pissed if I spend a season worth of entry fees disabling it to find out within a year that we can keep it...

Stephen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top