Bill Miller
New member
You mean like the ECU rule?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
more thoughts on wheels
- Thread starter Bill Miller
- Start date
You mean like the ECU rule?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Quick,
You're sort of missing the point. This is an affordablility issue. 14x7 wheels are available, they just cost an arm and a leg. People with lots of cash will still be able to get them. Now that I think of it, I can get a set of Volk TE-37 made in Japan that only weigh 9lbs each. After shpping they'll only cost me about $2500 - that's only slightly more than it cost me to build my car!
When you imply that if you can't afford to have custom made 14x7 wheels manufactured for your car, build a new car, is so flawed it is ironic. This is probably why there is such overwhelming support for Darin's proposal.
You're sort of missing the point. This is an affordablility issue. 14x7 wheels are available, they just cost an arm and a leg. People with lots of cash will still be able to get them. Now that I think of it, I can get a set of Volk TE-37 made in Japan that only weigh 9lbs each. After shpping they'll only cost me about $2500 - that's only slightly more than it cost me to build my car!
When you imply that if you can't afford to have custom made 14x7 wheels manufactured for your car, build a new car, is so flawed it is ironic. This is probably why there is such overwhelming support for Darin's proposal.
No Jake you missed the point...run 14x6's. and leave everything alone you can't get 14x7's too bad. The other thing we can do is make the rule so EVERYONE can take advantage of it if they choose, and then leave it alone. If you do what I suggest you would never ever have to touch the wheel rules for the entire class ever again....GEE stabality in the rules do you think that would be a good thing? It seems like everything from shocks to compression ratio is changed at whim...I feel for all those Opel guys that have 9:1 motors that can't run them now....They where ok only a couple of months ago. AAARRRRGGGG
I see your point. Either don't do a thing, or do something now that will have longevity. However, I just don't think that widening B/C to 7 now is what B/C wants and it isn't needed now in the immediate future.
However, to support your argument, what I was trying to get at before with the comment about cars going from ITA to ITB was that eventually when classes propogate (again in the longer term) we are going to see more cars with 15's, 16's and 17's in ITB. Limiting them to 6" would be problematic.
However, to support your argument, what I was trying to get at before with the comment about cars going from ITA to ITB was that eventually when classes propogate (again in the longer term) we are going to see more cars with 15's, 16's and 17's in ITB. Limiting them to 6" would be problematic.
planet6racing
New member
So, let them go to 7", but give them a lead trophy to go with it (if they exceed 6"). Something like 150# in ballast. That should level things out. And that must be 150# in ballast, not "well, my car is 150# overweight anyway, so I'll just slap 7" wide wheels on it."
------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
That would be a great way to entice people to come race in IT.
I'm sorry, but the rules are clear that a half point increase is the maximum. If someone started building an engine with a greater increase than that, they should have known the risks that the 9:1 was an error that may be corrected in the future.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
You've got to stop and ask yourself if the relatively under-powered B and C cars would even want larger diameter or width wheels. Both could (and most likely would) make these car slower. The B cars might be a wash.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
That I do agree with...and logic would suggest that the classes are instore for a shuffle, you can't put everything in S, and and not much made in the last 5 yrs will fit in C, we are going to need new blood in the class for it to continue on otherwise it will start looking like prod...it is headed that way know, look how old most of our cars are...but that is byond the scope of this wheel thred. We need to look at what would be viable for the longest amount of time...even if it is a minor hardship now. If we open the wheel rules up then it is settled, put to bed...just like the ECU rule...it left a bad taste in some peoples mouths but something needed to be done.
This approach scares me a LOT. Every time I start to think that I should try to understand the Production rules, the various levels of preparation and exceptions/exemptions for particular cars makes me run screaming back to IT. It's bad enough as it is with spec-line exceptions and this kind of approach would officially set the category up for REAL competition adjustments.
Maybe we just leave the width question for B and C hanging until there is an outcry similar to that from current ITA 14" wheel users, rather than trying to be proactive?
K
PS - this is a great conversation.
"I'm sorry, but the rules are clear that a half point increase is the maximum. If someone started building an engine with a greater increase than that, they should have known the risks that the 9:1 was an error that may be corrected in the future."
Forgive me for building a car to the limit of published rules. What a way to entice people to come to IT. I will just toss that in the pile with the RR shocks. Mark my words...If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.
And do some Opel research...they did come with 9:1 from Germany...Opel was famous for sticking in european parts into US bound cars. And in talking to the people that know more about Opels then I they supplied the doc's proving that....only later it was decided that it was not good enough (have we heard this before)...AFTER THE RULE HAD BEEN CHANGED. It is like changing a speed limit after you passed the sign and then getting a ticket...honst officer it said 70...it only says 60 now...you just changed it, here is your ticket, have a nice day...sucker.
Forgive me for building a car to the limit of published rules. What a way to entice people to come to IT. I will just toss that in the pile with the RR shocks. Mark my words...If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.
And do some Opel research...they did come with 9:1 from Germany...Opel was famous for sticking in european parts into US bound cars. And in talking to the people that know more about Opels then I they supplied the doc's proving that....only later it was decided that it was not good enough (have we heard this before)...AFTER THE RULE HAD BEEN CHANGED. It is like changing a speed limit after you passed the sign and then getting a ticket...honst officer it said 70...it only says 60 now...you just changed it, here is your ticket, have a nice day...sucker.
Some of you need to read this several times & maybe you will get the point because the guys in Production didn't understand the same info back in the 50's & 60's. We are today where they were in the 50's & 60's. Ya want continious CHANGES/CREEPING step up to the plate & build a car for production.
If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.
If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.
If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.
If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.
Back under the Rock
David
If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.
If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.
If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.
If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.
Back under the Rock
David
planet6racing
New member
Frankly, I don't understand these comparisons to production. This isn't rule creep (imho), just a necessary step that needs to be taken to keep up with the automotive industry. The SCCA isn't going to vendors asking them to maintain an inventory of reasonably inexpensive wheels to keep the IT fields larger. Heck, I don't think they are doing that for anyone (except SCCA Formula and SCCA Sports racers).
Additionally, why is it that some people are so afraid of change? No one is forcing you to change with it. If you want to run your 12.5" X 5.394" wheels, go for it. I've already got 15" X 7" wheels on my car as classed, so the whole change won't help me in the least bit.
As for the lead trophy for 7" wheels, I'm a bit baffled. This would not be a line by line thing. If you run greater than 6.5" wheels in ITB/ITC, you get the trophy. Period. No exceptions. The same rule is used in FC (I believe. It's one of those formula classes) for sequential gear boxes: you run a sequential, you carry an extra 50#.
Additionally, why is it that some people are so afraid of change? No one is forcing you to change with it. If you want to run your 12.5" X 5.394" wheels, go for it. I've already got 15" X 7" wheels on my car as classed, so the whole change won't help me in the least bit.
As for the lead trophy for 7" wheels, I'm a bit baffled. This would not be a line by line thing. If you run greater than 6.5" wheels in ITB/ITC, you get the trophy. Period. No exceptions. The same rule is used in FC (I believe. It's one of those formula classes) for sequential gear boxes: you run a sequential, you carry an extra 50#.
Banzai240
New member
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
If this attitude continues IT will be in the same place that Prod is in with low car turn out.
Back under the Rock
David
David and others... Come out from under your rocks just long enough to think about this...
Is "rules creep" REALLY why Production is where is is today? I say NO...
Production is where it is today because those making the rules and perpetuating the class didn't have the forsight to adjust the rules for changing times. They failed to see the need to make adjustments to keep up with technology. The result... Production was nearly exctinct because they FAILED to make a place for NEWER CARS! You can't expect to keep a class going with all old cars, unless you are a vintage organization, in which case freezing the rules is a plus...
Today, even with the recent Restricted Preparation rule changes, Production simply can't absorb the technology, wheel sizes, and performance features that are commonplace in todays performance cars. This also prevents it from attracting the INTEREST of potential drivers, as all they see out there are older cars, older technology.
All you have to do is look at the ITA and ITS spec lines, then compare that to EP and FP... You'll notice that only about 15% of IT cars are likewise classified in Production. It simply failed to adjust itself properely to the market.
For IT, we have an opportunity to make very deliberate and select adjustments to the rules that will allow the class to continue being viable in today's market. A group HAS to do this if they want to continue operating the class successfully.
We aren't talking about allowing flares, alternate cams, altered compression ratios, alternate brakes, etc., etc., etc...
We are essentially talking about wheel sizes, shock rules, vehicle weights, and some reclassifications... All of which would ultimately make IT racing more accessible to a wider variety of drivers because the cost would be contained.
The class has never had a guarantee of competitiveness, and that's not likely to change. Nothing that has been proposed here is really going to change that, BUT, it does lend itself to potentially offering CLOSER competition.
IT will NOT go the way of Production, because there are people working on this who will NOT let that happen. I think the ultimate goal is to adjust a few things that need adjusting to keep the class viable and reduce/contain costs, and otherwise, leave the class alone. The only way that this could happen is if we do NOTHING to keep the class interesting and valid...
That being said, I think the bottom line on this wheel issue is simple:
The larger part of ITC and ITB will NOT be effected by the lack of 15x6" wheels, as most would NOT elect to use these, having 14x6" readily available. The real impact will be in ITA and ITS, where the change is really needed.
Therefore, I really don't think that altering the current widths is something that needs to be done. I think it would negatively impact ITB and ITC, and wouldn't effect ITA and ITS at all, the later of which is where the change is really needed.
Bottom line... I'd go with exactly what I proposed and that would be sufficient for many years to come.
Keep the dialog going. It's great to have this kind of really in-depth discussion on these issues...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
****Is "rules creep" REALLY why Production is where is is today? I say NO...****
Darin, if your going to stick to what you say then please tell me if the following items are CREEP within the GCR/PCS.
Darin, your response options are YES or NO.
A. A system of head restraint 4 to 6 inches behind the trailing edge of the main hoop.
B. The bridge roll cage from Flordia with the side hoops passing through holes in the hood terminating someplace under the hood.
C. Main hoop diagonals with one end attached to the main hoop & the other end attached to the rear spring perch.
Items A, B & C are all items which have CREEPED into Production cars & are illegal untill someone uses a strained & or tortured interpertation of the GCR/PCS. The same $hit WILL HAPPEN in IT once the gates open.
Have Fun
David
Darin, if your going to stick to what you say then please tell me if the following items are CREEP within the GCR/PCS.
Darin, your response options are YES or NO.
A. A system of head restraint 4 to 6 inches behind the trailing edge of the main hoop.
B. The bridge roll cage from Flordia with the side hoops passing through holes in the hood terminating someplace under the hood.
C. Main hoop diagonals with one end attached to the main hoop & the other end attached to the rear spring perch.
Items A, B & C are all items which have CREEPED into Production cars & are illegal untill someone uses a strained & or tortured interpertation of the GCR/PCS. The same $hit WILL HAPPEN in IT once the gates open.
Have Fun
David
You bet it is. There is no difference between I can't find 14x7's that fit my car and I can't get the stock cam anymore...lets use the replacement part. Next is I can't get my rods, then crank, then cyl head, I cant find my fenders, I need to run fiberglass. We will all come up with all kinds of paperwork to support our claim, but it is the same. You can go around the world one inch at at time. We are talking about making a sweeping rule change because "X"# of cars can't find wheels in their max size...OH they can still get wheels and be within the rules as written but no one wants to come to the table on that, I am a bad guy for suggesting that someone stays within the rules as written. Well if we are going to change the rule lets change it for all IT classes and make them as long lasting as possible, even if it means that some will not take advantage. We can make this work no matter what the part in question is a cam or a wheel. Little changes here and there may sound like a good idea at the time but if it keeps happening that is what turns people off. The worst rules written are the rules that effect only some of the people...ie ECU.
Maybe we are going about this the wrong way.
How about putting the Genie back into the bottle and restricting wheel widths to 6" maximums.
Wheels are then plentiful in the maximum allowed sizes. No big bucks needed for custom 7" wide wheels.
The current owners of 7" wide wheels can increase their race budgets by offloading their wheels on ebay.
Even though competitiveness of a car is not guarateed, it would still be nice to have a somewhat level playing field at a reasonable cost.
Rick
How about putting the Genie back into the bottle and restricting wheel widths to 6" maximums.
Wheels are then plentiful in the maximum allowed sizes. No big bucks needed for custom 7" wide wheels.
The current owners of 7" wide wheels can increase their race budgets by offloading their wheels on ebay.
Even though competitiveness of a car is not guarateed, it would still be nice to have a somewhat level playing field at a reasonable cost.
Rick
planet6racing
New member
Off load my wheels on E-Bay? Yeah, I'll get a lot for the 3 sets of beatup OEM 15 X 6.5"'s I'm using. Besides, I have yet to find a 15" X 6" aluminum alloy wheel and since the rules won't let me go down in size...
OK, I'm seeing that this all might get heated pretty quickly (I'm starting to feel it myself). Let's all just keep this in perspective, m'kay?
------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
OK, I'm seeing that this all might get heated pretty quickly (I'm starting to feel it myself). Let's all just keep this in perspective, m'kay?
------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
I figured that would warm a couple of folks.
The point that I wanted to make is I perceive that people who already have the 7" wide wheels like and want to keep the advantage they have.
They do not want others to have an opportunity to purchase wheels at a reasonable price.
Rick
The point that I wanted to make is I perceive that people who already have the 7" wide wheels like and want to keep the advantage they have.
They do not want others to have an opportunity to purchase wheels at a reasonable price.
Rick
We are doing this now...How many v6 Mustangs and cameros do you see...Mitsu 3000...we have all seen that the rules makers think that the car will be to much/too fast too much of that P-word as my wife calls it. I have friends that would love to run a mustang...but not a 4cyl.
Talk about aftermarket support for a fox bodied mustang...it's everywhere, but IT.
But we can keep running our old cars because we have no guarantee. If my 30yr old car slowly slides down from S to C and then runs at the back of C I am cool with that....as long as it can slide easly and easly=cheaply. I don't have to buy new wheels.