October Fastrack

[erlrich]

No. Moving the Borgward down a class is only a comp adjustment if it's being done because the car isn't competitive. In this case, a request was made to look closely at the cars numbers. It was researched, and found to be a car that fit the process in ITB, not ITA. That is a reclass based on numbers, not a comp adjustment.[/b]

Hmmm, so if the Borgward WAS competitve in A, and nobody was complaining about the car being uncompetitive, it would still have moved to ITB because the numbers said that's where it belonged?

I think you guys should all take a step back and listen to what the other guys are saying; you might find that there is logic in both side's arguments. In the example here, the Borgward was moved down a class because it was re-examined, and the formula most likely determined it was one of those "tweener" cars, and the subjective part of the process (which probably was a significant factor in the original classing) was tweaked and it fell out in B. That's just one possible (probable?) scenario, but regardless of how it happened the fact is that the car was re-examined BECAUSE is was uncompetitive. So, even though the actual adjustment was not based on on-track performance, the adjustment indirectly resulted from on-track performance. So how about we call it an "indirect competition adjustment"?

Again, not at all. There are plenty of cars that make very close to their potential power with a chip swap. Some have found that they have tried all sorts of ECUs (just for research) and the factory solution works best. So, it is clearly NOT a case of everybody having to add an open ECU.[/b]

Jake, I know you weren't one of the guys using the argument "if we allow 7" wheels in ITB/C then everyone will have to go out and get them", but your argument flies directly in the face of theirs. I'm sure there are plenty of cars that would see little or no performance advantage in moving from 6" to 7" wheels, but that didn't stop some of our most prolific debaters from using that as an argument against allowing wider rims. IMO neither is a valid argument for or against the change; the only valid arguments I see are a: does it fit with the overall class philosophy/intent, and/or b: is it good for the class overall. Pretty much anything else is just self-serving rationalization.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK, I will explain this one more time. The Shelby was by-passed in the 'correction' because it had some 'unknown' qualities that required some extra research. Effectively, we were 'scared' of the car just getting thrown into the process and hurting B. There are a few cars in the ITCS freak me out personally just like this one. How about the ITA Monza with the 3.8l V6 rated at 110 stock hp? It was left alone.

Kirk was right on the money when he said we did our best and would out certain cars under the microscope when requested.

The request came in to look at the car. It set off the chain of events which resulted in the reclass to B. It has nothing to do with lack of - or actual competitiveness. It is a rock solid B car IMHO - not even close to a tweener.

I will call this a 'correction set in motion by member request'. NOTHING to do from the ITAC side with competitivness.

 

[jjjanos]

I'm going to raise a low shrill and beat the deceased horse again 'cause nobody has yet to answer...

What is the rational/purpose of the rule limiting wheel rim size in IT classes?

 

[JoshS]

I'm going to raise a low shrill and beat the deceased horse again 'cause nobody has yet to answer...

What is the rational/purpose of the rule limiting wheel rim size in IT classes?
[/b]

Speaking for myself, and not in any officially or as a member of the ITAC:

This rule predates my time in IT. At this point in time it could possibly be considered an anachronism and just by that very nature is a candidate for discussion for change.

But changing this rule (unlike some anachronisms) would clearly alter the status-quo, and that makes it a touchy subject. There are no easy ways to clean up these sorts of issues. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but there has to be very compelling reasons to do something, and then it has to happen with a slow, careful methodology.

 

[Knestis]

I'm going to raise a low shrill and beat the deceased horse again 'cause nobody has yet to answer...

What is the rational/purpose of the rule limiting wheel rim size in IT classes?
[/b]

Your not liking - or not wanting to hear - the answer is very different than nobody answering.

How did that tagline go? "In space, nobody can hear you scream."

K

 

[erlrich]

The request came in to look at the car....

I will call this a 'correction set in motion by member request'. NOTHING to do from the ITAC side with competitivness.[/b]

Sorry if I seemed to imply that Andy; I thought it was generally accepted that pretty much EVERY request to review car classification was member-generated. I also thought it was generally accepted that about 99.99999% of those member requests were the result of a (real or perceived) lack of competitiveness of said car.

 

[lateapex911]

I'm going to raise a low shrill and beat the deceased horse again 'cause nobody has yet to answer...

What is the rational/purpose of the rule limiting wheel rim size in IT classe
[/b]

I seem to recall an answer back there regarding sizes that fit under fenders etc.

It was before my time, so I can't say first hand. However, I can say that when we created ITR, wheel size was discussed, and I remember making a warning that the final call should be one that everybody feels good about, because it would be carved in stone. We considered the stock sizes the cars came with, the ease of getting certain sizes, the need for the cars to be able to put down power, as well as the anticipated weight of the cars.

So, I would imagine that the folks who made the original calls did the same.

As for a "Good reason" why they don't get changed, I'd reiterate that I haven't seen a convincing case TO change them.

One of the things people tell me when I talk to them about IT is that they like the stability. They often say we are on the verge of changing things too quickly. Which means, to me, I better be darn sure that a rules change is really good for the category before I consider it.

Bill, I honestly shouldn't waste time responding to such name calling from you, and I won't.

Sorry if I seemed to imply that Andy; I thought it was generally accepted that pretty much EVERY request to review car classification was member-generated. I also thought it was generally accepted that about 99.99999% of those member requests were the result of a (real or perceived) lack of competitiveness of said car.

[/b]

Andy summed it up nicely, Remeber folks, there are hundres of cars in the ITCS. We were on the phone from 8 to 1 or 2 AM several times going over this stuff. And some of those cars are old and have weird specs.

We gave it all a good look, but we knew it was a first pass, and we knew we could fine tune things down the road if needed, such as in this case.

Earl, actually some items are internally generated. The ECU is an ITAC originated item, and there are certain cars getting looked at as we speak that we have initiated ourselves.

And I know of two people on this board who have acted in ways that actually hurt themselves but help the category. It's not always as it seems.

 

[jjjanos]

Your not liking - or not wanting to hear - the answer is very different than nobody answering.

How did that tagline go? "In space, nobody can hear you scream."
[/b]

Well, I'm hearing why you think the rule shouldn't be relaxed for a particular car - because.

I'm hearing why you think the rule shouldn't be dropped - self-interest (because you've already invested in wheels that fit within the current rules).

The question is why the rule to begin with.

 

[jjjanos]

I seem to recall an answer back there regarding sizes that fit under fenders etc.

It was before my time, so I can't say first hand. However, I can say that when we created ITR, wheel size was discussed, and I remember making a warning that the final call should be one that everybody feels good about, because it would be carved in stone. We considered the stock sizes the cars came with, the ease of getting certain sizes, the need for the cars to be able to put down power, as well as the anticipated weight of the cars.

So, I would imagine that the folks who made the original calls did the same.[/b]

In the case of ITR, where existing precedents on that classes wheel size did not exist, why impose any specific and universal maximum width? I.e. The question isn't why is it set at a specific width, the question is why the need for a specific width at all? Why not just mandate the stock wheel rim size? Or a rule stating wheels/tires cannot extend beyond the horizontal plane of the fender edge? If it rubs, it's going to be a self-correcting problem because you are going to eat your tires.

I.e. when ITHybrid or ITSuperFast gets developed... why set an artificial limit at all? Run the stock size or just don't set a limit at all and let Darwin do its work on those putting overly large rims on their cars.

As for a "Good reason" why they don't get changed, I'd reiterate that I haven't seen a convincing case TO change them.[/b]

At this point, I haven't seen a convincing case for a universal change in the rule either and that hasn't been my point.

 

[ScotMac]

As i have been saying, the cars are correctly classed based on power/hp to weight and handling. Adding rim width restrictions does not make sense.

However, the main reason for the change is the lack of availability of 6" wheels, especially 5x100. Other than $400+ custom wheels from Kodiak/etc, and 15-20lb unsuitable stock wheels (most over double the weight of the Kodiaks), the only vendor remaining is spinwerkes (who could be better in terms of weight: 11.8lbs in a 14x6 w/ the necessary offset for my car). Only one reasonably priced supplier is not an acceptable availability, in order to base the development of the B and C classes on.

This lack of supply discourages new/future racers in the exact classes (B and C) that are seeing very small fields in many regions.

The only argument against the change has been existing racers attempting to safeguard the wheels they have already purchased. I am not saying that is not a consideration, but we must also consider the future of the two classes impacted.

I see two possible compromises, as a way of easing into this:

1. Use the proposed weight penalty as a means of allowing both the existing stock of 6" and new 7" rims.

2. Phase the change in. ie, instead of springing on the existing drivers, announce it now, but don't allow the 7" rims to be run for a year or two. Thus allowing people to prepare for it, rather than dumping on them immediately after they have bought 6" wheels.

 

[shwah]

Anyone that is buying 10lb (ish) wheels for a low price is getting an especially good deal. That does not give all other competitors some sort of birthright to cheap ultra light wheels. In the marketplace in general, very light wheels are very expensive, especially ones that are structurally suited to road racing. Why would you not expect this to be the case?

Some are lucky - like the 4x100 - 14x6" guys who have a Kosei wheel that is cheap and 10lbs. Of course they have also been known to break, so some could argue that custom is the only real way to go. Others that could use them like me, want to run a different size and can't find inexpensive lightweight options, but live with that reality and keep looking for used deals.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

What if a certain car comes with huge fenders that allows for huge wheels and tires? Wheels and tires that are above and beyond what anything else in the class can realistically fit? Does this just become an 'adder'? Do we have to know what width tires can fit under what fenders? How wide is considered wide enough for additional weight? How narrow is considered a subtractor?

If you require each class to run on a standard rim width, you take away a variable that is difficult to account for in the 'process'.

 

[Knestis]

...The question this afternoon is why the rule to begin with.
[/b]

There - fixed that for you. You'll keep asking it in different ways. That's Web Lawyer Rule #6, if I'm not mistaken. Let's test my hypothesis that you won't be able to leave it alone even after I answer THIS iteration:

I wasn't in the actual conversations that resulted in the first ITCS but I was racing IT cars under region-specific rules before the national rules were published, so I know the context in which those decisions were made.

IT was created as a reaction to the increasing cost and complexity of Production and Sedan/GT rules of the period, and as a place for SS cars to go when they retired, so simplicity was paramount. The "no guarantee" clause was intended to codify that - to eliminate any route or even temptation to pursue competition adjustments (bleah, bleah), that were WELL understood even then to be at the root of what we now call rules creep. To review, that's the effect of marginal allowances made, one car and one member request at a time, that add up to pretty dramatic escalation of the motorsports arms race in a class.

(I know, you reject that those forces are a problem.)

Remember that this was the early-to-mid 1980s. The state of the art in tires was such that they were WAY less sticky than now. We could never have conceived of something like a modern Hoosier or Hankook (et al.) so, much more so than is the case now, a wider wheel was understood to be an advantage. However, stock wheels were crappy stamped steel affairs for the most part so there was a desire to allow something better.

Consider too that the difference on a B or C car between a 6" wheel and the 4-1/2" or 5" wheel many of them came with was pretty dramatic. A 7" wheel was REALLY wide for the time. Given all of this, and a desire to make consistent as many variables as possible, a set maximum for each class was clearly a sensible answer. Each got what amounted to a +1" allowance beyond the widest wheels that came on cars in listed in the first generation of IT cars - a solution not entirely unlike what the current ITAC did for ITR.

So, there you go. You're welcome.

K

 

[jjjanos]

What if a certain car comes with huge fenders that allows for huge wheels and tires?[/b]

Stock size rims or any size where the wheel/tire combo do not extend beyond the horizontal plane seem to be both concise and clear statements. I.e If I can shove 32" rims into my CRX, then I get to do it.

Wheels and tires that are above and beyond what anything else in the class can realistically fit? [/b]

Stock size rims or any size where the wheel/tire combo do not extend beyond the horizontal plane seem to be both concise and clear statements.

Does this just become an 'adder'? [/b]

Explain.

Do we have to know what width tires can fit under what fenders?[/b]

Well, with all due respect, you already need that information. You're allowing any car in ITA/ITS to run 7" wheels. Presumably if the purpose of the rule is to restrict rims to what will prevent fender rubbing, someone would need to know whether that proposed ITA vehicle can accomodate 7" wheels and whether the cars that appear to be classed in both ITR and ITS can accomodate the wider wheels.

How wide is considered wide enough for additional weight? How narrow is considered a subtractor? If you require each class to run on a standard rim width, you take away a variable that is difficult to account for in the 'process'.[/b]

Apparently something along the lines of 185lbs for 1.5" (based on the dual classifications) since dropping from ITR to ITS seems to have that impact on the one car I looked at.

How much is fuel-injection worth compared to a carb? How much is FWD compared to RDW worth? Let's get rid of those adjustments as well since they muck up the calculations with extra inputs.

And, I believe, you already should or do incorporate wheel size into the "process" since there are interactions between rim size and the other independent variables determining performance. A Honda CRX is going to suffer a great deal less by using a smaller wheel than will a whale like the New Beetle.

 

[ScotMac]

Anyone that is buying 10lb (ish) wheels for a low price is getting an especially good deal. That does not give all other competitors some sort of birthright to cheap ultra light wheels. In the marketplace in general, very light wheels are very expensive, especially ones that are structurally suited to road racing. Why would you not expect this to be the case?

Some are lucky - like the 4x100 - 14x6" guys who have a Kosei wheel that is cheap and 10lbs. Of course they have also been known to break, so some could argue that custom is the only real way to go. Others that could use them like me, want to run a different size and can't find inexpensive lightweight options, but live with that reality and keep looking for used deals.
[/b]

And why relegate ourselves to that almost non-existent supply of 10lb 6" wheels, allowing only those w/ the big budgets to get them, when we could instead open it up to the much larger supply of 10lb 7" rims? Oh right because you want to:

Of course, I selfishly would like to keep using my 20+ existing 6" wheels.
[/b]

 

[ScotMac]

There - fixed that for you. You'll keep asking it in different ways. That's Web Lawyer Rule #6, if I'm not mistaken. Let's test my hypothesis that you won't be able to leave it alone even after I answer THIS iteration:

I wasn't in the actual conversations that resulted in the first ITCS but I was racing IT cars under region-specific rules before the national rules were published, so I know the context in which those decisions were made.

IT was created as a reaction to the increasing cost and complexity of Production and Sedan/GT rules of the period, and as a place for SS cars to go when they retired, so simplicity was paramount. The "no guarantee" clause was intended to codify that - to eliminate any route or even temptation to pursue competition adjustments (bleah, bleah), that were WELL understood even then to be at the root of what we now call rules creep. To review, that's the effect of marginal allowances made, one car and one member request at a time, that add up to pretty dramatic escalation of the motorsports arms race in a class.

(I know, you reject that those forces are a problem.)

Remember that this was the early-to-mid 1980s. The state of the art in tires was such that they were WAY less sticky than now. We could never have conceived of something like a modern Hoosier or Hankook (et al.) so, much more so than is the case now, a wider wheel was understood to be an advantage. However, stock wheels were crappy stamped steel affairs for the most part so there was a desire to allow something better.

Consider too that the difference on a B or C car between a 6" wheel and the 4-1/2" or 5" wheel many of them came with was pretty dramatic. A 7" wheel was REALLY wide for the time. Given all of this, and a desire to make consistent as many variables as possible, a set maximum for each class was clearly a sensible answer. Each got what amounted to a +1" allowance beyond the widest wheels that came on cars in listed in the first generation of IT cars - a solution not entirely unlike what the current ITAC did for ITR.

So, there you go. You're welcome.

[/b]

Yes, setting a maximum size is probably a good idea, for the reason Andy gave: an easily classifiable variable for the process. The only question is what that max size should be.

And yes, the 6" rim was a historical decision that doesn't necessarily apply any more. In fact, the +1" for many of the current B and C cars would definitely not be a 6" rim. It isn't any more strange to put 7" wheels on B and C cars as it is to put them on A cars.

 

[Bill Miller]

I seem to recall an answer back there regarding sizes that fit under fenders etc.

It was before my time, so I can't say first hand. However, I can say that when we created ITR, wheel size was discussed, and I remember making a warning that the final call should be one that everybody feels good about, because it would be carved in stone. We considered the stock sizes the cars came with, the ease of getting certain sizes, the need for the cars to be able to put down power, as well as the anticipated weight of the cars.

So, I would imagine that the folks who made the original calls did the same.

As for a "Good reason" why they don't get changed, I'd reiterate that I haven't seen a convincing case TO change them.

One of the things people tell me when I talk to them about IT is that they like the stability. They often say we are on the verge of changing things too quickly. Which means, to me, I better be darn sure that a rules change is really good for the category before I consider it.

Bill, I honestly shouldn't waste time responding to such name calling from you, and I won't.
Andy summed it up nicely, Remeber folks, there are hundres of cars in the ITCS. We were on the phone from 8 to 1 or 2 AM several times going over this stuff. And some of those cars are old and have weird specs.

We gave it all a good look, but we knew it was a first pass, and we knew we could fine tune things down the road if needed, such as in this case.

Earl, actually some items are internally generated. The ECU is an ITAC originated item, and there are certain cars getting looked at as we speak that we have initiated ourselves.

And I know of two people on this board who have acted in ways that actually hurt themselves but help the category. It's not always as it seems.
[/b]

Name calling? Get over yourself. When you float a line of crap like that out there, don't get your panties in a knot when someone calls you on it.

And please, after the morass that you and the rest of the ITAC have spent the last couple of years 'fixing', I find it downright laughable that you give the original IT rule-framers credit for that kind of foresight.

And if the Shelby was such an anomaly, why weren't you guys already on it? Why did it take a member request for you to look at it again?

And really Andy, if the car was such a 'solid B car', why was there any need to hesitate on it?

It's all about perception guys.

 

[Knestis]

... Oh right because you want to[/b]

What you want Scot, what I want, and what any other individual IT racer wants should be trumped by what is best for the category. And Jake is right - most people believe that rules stability is best for IT.

If you get what you argue passionately for, are you then totally OK with the ITAC and CRB granting every other racer who pitches the same heartfelt case getting exactly what he or she wants to improve his/her competitiveness, too?

K

 

[jjjanos]

Remember that this was the early-to-mid 1980s. The state of the art in tires was such that they were WAY less sticky than now. We could never have conceived of something like a modern Hoosier or Hankook (et al.) so, much more so than is the case now, a wider wheel was understood to be an advantage. However, stock wheels were crappy stamped steel affairs for the most part so there was a desire to allow something better.[/b]

To paraphrase, Prod tries to shoehorn new technology into obsolete cars by adjusting the rules and
IT tries to shoehorn obsolete rules onto new technology by adjusting nothing?

Given all of this, and a desire to make consistent as many variables as possible, a set maximum for each class was clearly a sensible answer.[/b]

Well, that's an answer.

 

[Knestis]

To paraphrase, Prod tries to shoehorn new technology into obsolete cars by adjusting the rules and
IT tries to shoehorn obsolete rules onto new technology by adjusting nothing? ...
[/b]

That is an inspired way to look at it!
K