more thoughts on wheels

B

Bill Miller

New member
Didn't want to hijack Darin's thread, so I started a new one. Thoughts on this.

ITC/ITB - All cars can run up to 15x6" wheels

ITA/ITS - All cars can run up to 15x7" wheels. For those cars that came stock (not as an option) w/ 16" or 17" wheels, they will be allowed to run that diameter, but will be limited to 7" width.
 
Simple and clear. Keep that crap outta here!
smile.gif


The ITAC is formulating a recommendation for our next con call.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
I like this but only marginally better than D's suggestion. In practice they both mean about the same thing, I expect because there is a small return under IT rules to the step from 15" to 16", or 16"-17".

The Miller Amendment heads off what I think are unsubstantiated concerns but philosophically limits rules creep, by not extending the "plus" allowance to classes where wheel availability is not an issue.

On the other hand, Darin's plan addresses the coming of larger wheels more proactively and - taking the broad view - equitably. That said, I still think plus sizes for the very few 16/17" cars currently in IT is premature.

THAT, said - it's probably six of one, a half dozen of another.

K
 
I'd support either one. Either addresses the problem of dwindling supplies in 13" and 14" sizes.
 
My wording was specifically choosen so as not to exclude anyone from having wheel options.

As for the notion that "plus sizes for the very few 16/17" cars currently in IT is premature."... Sometimes, you have to do things because they just make sense, and not always because they are a "need"... When you "need" these things, it's usually a little late. It wouldn't harm IT in the least to make a few, very select changes to the rules to help keep them viable into the coming years. I don't see a change such as has been proposed as harming the class at all, and in fact, would make it more attractive to many out there.

We'll see how things go. I'm not worried about the "rules creep" issue, because there is a good group of people considering these things very carefully, and want, above all else, to continue the success of IT into the future.

Keep up the good thoughts.



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Being a person that uses 13" wheels, when would it be an advantage for me to use a 14" or 15" (related to gearing, not availability, ect.)?
 
I think it's less about real advantage and more about the percption of it - or the option to choose an advantage or disadvantage based on individual desires.

K
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
My wording was specifically choosen so as not to exclude anyone from having wheel options.

As for the notion that "plus sizes for the very few 16/17" cars currently in IT is premature."... Sometimes, you have to do things because they just make sense, and not always because they are a "need"... When you "need" these things, it's usually a little late. It wouldn't harm IT in the least to make a few, very select changes to the rules to help keep them viable into the coming years. I don't see a change such as has been proposed as harming the class at all, and in fact, would make it more attractive to many out there.

We'll see how things go. I'm not worried about the "rules creep" issue, because there is a good group of people considering these things very carefully, and want, above all else, to continue the success of IT into the future.
Click to expand...

While I could live with Bill's proposal, and I could also live with just opening up diameters, I do have to agree with everything Darin has said here. I've been pushing this issue, and I personally think Darin's proposal is probably one the best compromise we could ask for. A few people will be upset on both ends of the equations, but the vast majority of the IT community that have been polled (including outside this forum) I think would support this heartily.

I think Darin is spot-on above.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited January 18, 2004).]
 
In some cases, its an advantage to run 13" instead of 15" due to less rotational inertia.

The E-prod Miatas are allowed to run either 13" or 15" rims.......guess what size Braake won his national championship on
smile.gif


(Hint....think small)
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
I think it's less about real advantage and more about the percption of it - or the option to choose an advantage or disadvantage based on individual desires.
Click to expand...

I think Kirk is right about perception.

I still think it's more about being able to actually find wheels and tires for a reasonable price.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Sorry - to clarify: I agree with Geo.

The REAL issues is about not being able to find 14s. The micro solution to that is to allow cars that came with 14s to run 15s (since 13s are only marginally less an issue than 14s, it seems).

Beyond that - secondary issues - it's all about perceptions.

K
 
I can see where running 13's would be advantageous at a short, tight track, like LRP for example. By the same token, I can see 15's being advantageous a longer, more open tracks, like Road America for example. I haven't looked at what kind of change in gearing I could get from say a 205/60/13 vs. a 205/50/15. Note: just checked the TireRack for specs on Hoosiers.

205/60/13 - diameter = 22.7"
205/50/15 - diameter = 22.8"

Essentially no difference. Interesting side note though. For the 13", they list a suggested rim width of 7-8" yet their specs are taken on a 6" wheel. For the 15", it's 7.5-8.5" w/ the specs taken on a 6.5" wheel.

So, no real advantage of running one over the other, from a gearing standpoint. Interesting to note that the 13" tire is $31/tire cheaper than the 15" tire (R3S03). No 13" tires are offered in the new R4S04 configuration/compound (Hmmmm, does this sound familiar???).

And Darin, I'm sorry, but you're going to do a hell of a lot more than that to convince me that plus sizing 'makes sense' for cars that come w/15", 16", and 17" wheels, stock. The whole reason behind any of this, is to provide more wheel availability for guys running 13" and 14" wheels. I just can't see there ever beeing a shortage of 15", 16", and 17" wheels in our lifetime. You're trying to piggy-back something that's not needed onto something that is. That my friend, is a textbook case of rules creep.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
There are several ways to look at this topic. It is for availability reasons (based on what was said) there would be little reason for someone with 13" or 14" rims to use a larger wheel. That was what I thought, but wanted to verify. So that takes away the availability theory.

It almost seems that rule would primarily benefit those wishing to reduce their wheel size. 15" to 13".

Change gearing - could go either way here. You are giving another benefit to those people who have larger wheels. The benefit is easier access to changing the gear ratios. And yes, people with 13" and 14" can change the gear ratios, but not as easily. I am not saying I am necessarily against the proposal...
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
The whole reason behind any of this, is to provide more wheel availability for guys running 13" and 14" wheels.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to try to argue with you Bill... You'll believe what you want regardless of what I say.

This issue is about more than band-aides for certain cars. As long as there is even ONE manufacturer of wheels out there supplying the vaious 13" and 14" wheels, they are "avaialable", so that's really a weak argument by itself. If you look at it, however, from the standpoint of what makes the class continue to be viable and attract/keep participants, it doesn't tie you to only those band-aide fixes, but rather to what helps to sustain the success for the class.

A rule change, as I've suggested in my poll, updates the class only slightly, but enough to increase the scope of cars and drivers wishing to participate. That's what I believe, and for whatever reason they might believe, there are about 30+ others here who seem to think it's a good idea as well.

Just curious... what exactly is your problem with allowing larger than xx" wheels anyhow? What is it you are trying to protect?



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by gran racing:
It almost seems that rule would primarily benefit those wishing to reduce their wheel size. 15" to 13".
Click to expand...

Guys... read carefully... If you are referring to my poll... there would be NO provisions to go DOWN in wheel size if you started with 15" wheels... 13" can upgrade to as large as 15", 15" to 16", and so on... There was nothing mentioned of going the other way. It's a "PLUS" upgrade...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
So, let's summarize the thoughts so far:

Not one person has stated that going up a size would be a performance advantage, if there is, it is neglegent.

The other issue is availability - which is why this is on the table. Darin first started talking about this a LONG time ago. If there is no performance advantage and it helps keep costs down, I see it as a good thing, right?

Bill,

There may not be a problem with 15" wheels right now, but if there are no performance gains to be had, why not have the rule in place for when it does happen? This is a case of solving one issue and being proactive on another - all in one fell swoop. In your mind, is rules creep and the 'evolution' of rules, the same thing?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
This issue is about more than band-aides for certain cars. As long as there is even ONE manufacturer of wheels out there supplying the vaious 13" and 14" wheels, they are "avaialable", so that's really a weak argument by itself. If you look at it, however, from the standpoint of what makes the class continue to be viable and attract/keep participants, it doesn't tie you to only those band-aide fixes, but rather to what helps to sustain the success for the class.
.

Darin,

Please read my post again. I said more availability. I didn't say they weren't available. And what's a weak arguement, is you're implication that not allowing cars to run 16,17, and 18" wheels is going to hinder the long-term success of the category. You were one of the ones that were the biggest backers of things 'not being broken' in IT, so there was no need for comp. adjustments. Yet now, you want to essentially re-write the wheel rules for the whole category, when the only thing that needs to be addressed is the availability of the 13" and 14" wheels. If there was a ready supply of 13" and 14" wheels, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

The provision was already made for the cars w/ metric wheels to use more readily available wheels due to the shortage of wheels and tires. The same thing is now happening w/ 13's and 14's (you did see my comment about availability of the new Hoosier in 13" sizes, didn't you?).

I'm interested in what your thoughts are on some guys not being able to run (what may be) the best tire out there, because it's not made in a size that they can use.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I'm interested in what your thoughts are on some guys not being able to run (what may be) the best tire out there, because it's not made in a size that they can use.
Click to expand...

Give me an example of how this would be possible if EVERYONE were allowed to run at least a 15" wheel...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You were one of the ones that were the biggest backers of things 'not being broken' in IT, so there was no need for comp. adjustments.</font>
Click to expand...

Maybe you'll find some passing quote to support this, but it sounds to me like you have the wrong guy. I've NEVER support "Production-style" CAs, but I've supported PCAs from the beginning. Further, IT isn't broken, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need some minor tweaking.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If there was a ready supply of 13" and 14" wheels, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.</font>
Click to expand...

I would be... Have you ever heard me say I WAS NOT in favor of opening up wheel diameters in IT? It's now a commonplace performance upgrade on the streets and on the track...

Again, I'm apparently NOT alone in my thinking...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">...is you're implication that not allowing cars to run 16,17, and 18" wheels is going to hinder the long-term success of the category.</font>
Click to expand...

With NASA gobbling up our drivers, and racers choosing SM or other avenues to race their otherwise IT cars... YES, that is part of my agrument, and one that could hold water all on it's own...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 18, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited January 18, 2004).]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top