Rule change - 15" wheel allowance?

K

Knestis

Moderator
Someone mentioned that a recommendation is headed for the Board that all IT cars be allowed to run at least 15" wheels. Where was this publicized? It seems like a really major thing that hasn't surfaced here. Which FasTrack is this one in?

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited July 17, 2004).]
 
I argued for this last year. Let's hope they reconsider as the availablility of 14" wheels from a number of manufacturers has dwindled yet again with the loss of American Racing's entry that I use (heavy but works).

------------------
Grandpa's toys-modded suspensions and a few other tweaks
'89 CRX Si-SCCA ITA #99
'99 Prelude=a sweet song
'03 Dodge Dakota Club Cab V8-Patriot Blue gonna tow
 
Kirk,

We've been discussing this here for MANY, MANY months...

You'll find mention of it in the following release of Fastrack:

May 2004 Fastrack



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Thanks, Darin. I knew that the conversation had been started but I totally missed the official action on it.

K

EDIT - Now am I really confused, or does that bulletin say "not recommended?" I was under the impression from that earlier post here that it is headed to the board for final approval. Someone straighten me out.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited July 17, 2004).]
 
This issue is NOT in front of the BOD yet. It's in front of the CRB. If the CRB approves it will got to the BOD.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Last I heard, the CRB had accepted the up to 15" wheel part of the recomendation...

Likely not in a timeframe to have it make the latest Fastrack, so I'm not sure what that means as far as getting it to the BoD for the August vote... Either way, the item is definately in the works, so it will be part of the decisions being made this year...

This item was also part of the strategic planning, so it's possible that it will be included in part of that decision making.

We'll let you all know for sure when we do. Again, it would be a great idea for all of you to write with your support... especially to your Area Directors...

[email protected]

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 18, 2004).]
 
Okay - I don't feel so much like I missed something.

I guess what confuses me is (a) how IT racers - those who don't visit it.com, anyway - are supposed to know about this and (B) precisely what it is that we are supposed to be supporting. I do, by the way, think that this is an excellent idea but without seeing the actual wording of the proposal that is on the table, I'm a little hesitant to endorse it.

I'm puzzled too about the strategic plan. Typically, true "strategic" decision making wouldn't include specific decisions about things like wheel size. Instead, they would explicate the bigger principles to which future rules-making activities would be aligned.

I ABSOLUTELY believe that we need this kind of thinking applied to IT, given how much the category has evolved. However, if the "strategic plan" is actually going to be a comprehensive package of detail rules - tactical- and operational-level decisions - a LOT of questions arise:

Will the regular rules-changing process be applied to it? How (and when in the process) will it be presented to the membership? Will clauses be considered individually or only as a package (the issue of severability)?

I still have some confidence in the "new" world of IT but obviously have some concerns.

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
I guess what confuses me is (a) how IT racers - those who don't visit it.com, anyway - are supposed to know about this and (B) precisely what it is that we are supposed to be supporting.
Click to expand...

The proposal in front of the CRB (unless they approved it after our last conference call where it was still in the air) was in direct response to a member letter.

Originally posted by Knestis:
I do, by the way, think that this is an excellent idea but without seeing the actual wording of the proposal that is on the table, I'm a little hesitant to endorse it.
Click to expand...

In short, cars currently required to use wheels smaller than fifteen inches will be allowed to use wheels up to fifteen inches (but it's not required).

Originally posted by Knestis:
I'm puzzled too about the strategic plan.
Click to expand...

We're starting to crawl on this one. We are also in limbo temporarily since we don't have a committee chair at the moment. This situation will be resolved soon. I think we need a chair to set the tone and agenda. I know we have been preaching patience. Please extend us a bit more.

On the whole I think the IT community has been happy with the moves we've made so far (unless I've really missed something) and I think better things are coming, but things do happen somewhat slowly. But we are not autocratically run and that's a good thing, but it makes the process slower, especially when the members are part-time volunteers.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Not bitching here - just trying to understand...

The only letters that I could find addressing wheel diameter referenced in FasTracks (Myers, Fisher) were "not recommended at this time." It was my understanding that the CRB only determines "aye" or "nay" on member requests, so what process translates "not recommended" rule change proposals into action by the board?

Is this only because the club racing strategic plan is in play?

I'm also not being critical of the time required to get things done. These things should be well considered and that takes time.

K
 
Hmm.. cool - this is the first post that I've heard about something actually happening. I recall 300+ replies to a post of mine a while back and a wholesale rejection of the idea in Fasttrack - something like "this change isn't needed at this time". I'm glad to see that it all wasn't in vein.

Maybe when I get a rejection in Fasttrak - it really isn't a rejection. Maybe they are going ahead with it anyway! Since the MR2 -> ITB proposal was rejected twice just this year, maybe it's on its way. Woohoo!
 
Now I just wish I didn't pay those hacks so much to glue my 14x7 wheel back together.
smile.gif


BTW - don't tell Team Dynamics about this. They just spent a bunch of cash custom designing and producing 1000 14x7 4x100 lightweight wheels. They may be rather hard to sell soon.
 
Jake, can you offer any more details on those wheels, like prices and a URL reference? I'd love to get a set of lightweight 14" wheels for the soon-to-be-ITA car...
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
Not bitching here - just trying to understand...
Click to expand...

I know.

Originally posted by Knestis:
The only letters that I could find addressing wheel diameter referenced in FasTracks (Myers, Fisher) were "not recommended at this time." It was my understanding that the CRB only determines "aye" or "nay" on member requests, so what process translates "not recommended" rule change proposals into action by the board?

Is this only because the club racing strategic plan is in play?
Click to expand...

That's not a simple answer. The honest answer is we don't have a formal strategic plan yet. I would say that one will likely emerge from current discussions. But, keep in mind there are a lot of differing opinions not only in the IT community as a whole, but even within the ITAC so it's anything but cut and dried.

In this case the specific imepetus was another member letter. You see, sometimes things get rejected, even multiple times, but if the membership is persistent enough, the committee members can be convinced to change their position.

Originally posted by Knestis:
I'm also not being critical of the time required to get things done. These things should be well considered and that takes time.
Click to expand...

Yep. I know where you were coming from. To be honest, if we can get a real strategic plan formulated it will probably be after all of this year's open business is settled. But we're having some discussions.

[edit to add info left out initially]
------------------
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 July 18, 2004).]
 
OPM is the only outlet for the new TD wheels - try them at 770-886-8199, Greg.

EDIT picture links...

wNDcyMTczNnM0MTNkZmQzMXk1NDE%3D.jpg


wNDcyMTc0NnM0MTNkZmQzMXk1NDE%3D.jpg



K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited July 18, 2004).]
 
The change in ruling - it would only allow for an increase in size and not a decrease, correct? Or could you use any wheel size no matter what is OEM?

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
 
TD shouldn't have a problem. The rule is to open up the supply line for legal wheels for everyone. We have all agreed that going up in diameter and NOT in width (as the rule is written) would provide no performance advantage.

So, more choices, no advantage. Good, right?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
The recommended rule change was to allow all cars currently listed with 13/14" wheels to upgrade to a 15" wheel. This should help with any "wheel availability" issues...

If your car is currently listed with 14" or 15"... there is no provision or intention to allow you to go smaller...

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

Before I get started; I'm not against the change, I'm actually for it. I think it might be an opportunity. And I'm not trying to start another heated argument, just trying to raise some issues.

But...

I'm not so sure about the "no performance advantage". If you go to Hoosier's website and look at the specs on the tires available between 15 and 14. The difference in circumference (ie travel distance) varies from no difference to a 6" difference. Thats enough for a 7 mph difference (on paper) without changing any gear ratios. (3.90:1 diff @ 5500rpm, 71.5: vs 77.1") And the track varies from no difference to a 2" increase. Theres alot to play around with there. And alot of potential dollars spent on comparing the two. ($700 a set for panasports and I already have 3 sets)
Making the change would also cost alot more than the RR shock setup for my car that some of us had to just toss in the basement.

Have y'all looked into the development costs with a change like this? Or is it just, "if you don't want to change, don't". A lot of people without RR shocks didn't like being told that when confronted with that new cost.
How is this any different?

For me, I'd wait and see before I change. I have too many sets of tires and wheels. But as the sets dwindle, I'll spend the money to test with 15's because it may make some difference. And that one test session is going to cost $700 tires + $700 wheels + $150 for a test day. And if it works, add another $3000 on top of that for spares and a set of rains just to stay competitive.

This "little","no advantage" change has the potential of costing about $5000.

Those RR shocks were just $2700 for my car.

Tom
 
Hey, Tom, not to start a pissing match, but how is going to a larger-circumference wheel an advantage? Aren't most folks looking to shorten their gear ratios whenever possible?

Given the option, I will never change to 15" wheels as long as 14 inchers are available, because I NEED that shorter wheel for the gearing (and I don't have near the options or flexibility of final-drive changes that the rear-drivers do.) 15" wheels would also lead me towards clearance problems with my fenders and struts. Finally, 14" wheels and tires weigh less than 15" (given same section and width.)

GA
 
Greg,
If I went to a slightly taller tire, and since there is a limited number of ratios available for my car, I could test with the tire height and ratios to find an optimal combination for a particular track that I can't get with my current tires. Like switching from a 3.90 to the 3.73. With the 3.73 at Road Atlanta for example, 2nd is just too much for turn 7 and 3rd is not enough. 3rd is almost perfect in 7 with the 3.90 and a 4.11 is too. But the 4.11 doesn't have the legs down the back straight, so the 3.90 is a good compromise. And there are other numerically lower ratios to try with the R180 diff that might work really well with just a slightly taller tire that is still a 50 series and not a 60 series (which has been tried). And also, at least with the hoosiers, there is a 15" tire that is the same height as my current setup but a little over an inch wider which should help in cornering and braking. At least this is what I've been speculating.

And I could be wrong about the whole thing. I was kinda hoping someone could shoot holes in the whole idea so I could stick with my current setup for now. I'd like to buy an enclosed trailer.

Can't you just let me blame this all on George?

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