Wheel diameter rule change Poll

That's the point Jake, maybe there is, and maybe there isn't. But, w/o emperical data, you can't say for sure. And while the cornering forces may be the same w/ your tire example, there are other possibilities. With the greater variety of 15" wheels to choose from, it's entirely possible that you can get 15's that are lighter than 14's. Less unsprung weight, and possibly less rotational mass. I believe it was Darin that said that all else being equal, a 15" wheel will unshroud the brakes more than a 14" wheel.

Minor stuff, but possibly an advantage that could be exploted.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
[sarcasm]I've got a better idea. Let's wait until they don't make any 13" or 14" wheels or tires, then we can definately NOT allow cars to use 15"'s because a car with tires is for sure at a competitive advantage to one without. Textbook rules creep![/sarcasm]

Bill, you're example is flawed. You state that the larger wheels might be better because of better availablity of wheels and tires. This is circular logic and supports our argument, not yours. (all else being equal 14's are going to lighter than 15's). And there you go again sighting Darin's opinion. Don't get me wrong - I almost always agree with Darin.

Empircal proof to the contrary? Under your logic, monsters must exist because there is no empirical proof that they don't. It doesn't work that way.
 
Jake,

How is it circular logic? And, I do agree w/ you, if everything else is the same (design, construction material, construction method, etc.) that yes, a 14" version of that wheel will be lighter than a 15" version of that wheel. However, if you're saying that a 14" wheel will always be lighter than a 15" wheel (both the same width), you're wrong.

You yourself even said it was your opinion that there is no performance benefit to 15" wheels over 14" wheels (gearing notwithstanding). All I said was that you need emperical data to prove it one way or the other. Not sure how that relates to your monster comment???

George,

I guess you just can't help yourself, can you?
rolleyes.gif


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Sorry Bill, I admit I was getting just a little silly there. All I’m saying is that if your argument is: the allowance of larger wheels is a competitive advantage, and my argument is that larger wheels should be allowed because smaller ones have availability problems, you shouldn’t site the unavailability of smaller wheels as the argument for the competitive advantage. I think we agree on the rest of it.

And you are correct, monsters have no place in IT. However, it is not always necessary to prove something with a scientific test to say that it is not true. You’ve been reading Kirk’s posts a little too closely.
 
Jake,

I spent almost 13 years working in an R&D setting. The scientific method depends on emperical data.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
I'm all for scientific testing Bill. I work for one of the largest independant automotive testing centers in the world. However, I just think that the burden of proof depends on the view that is contrary to common logic. That's why you can't say Aliens and Monsters exist, just because I can't back up my "opinion" that they don't with scientific studies.
 
aliens and monsters do exist
my 6 yr old monster and my 10 year old alien ...
should be on ripleys....

anyways my humble opinion is that it sucks that I and others ares stuck with 13 inch tires until someone decides that we no longer are but there is no way that my prelude is gonna beat most of your cars whether I have 13 in wheels or 17 inch wheels.. so to me its all about availability and cost .. and there isnt enough available and the cost is hidious .. just a newb point of view..
 
It's been interesting reading this post, and it certainly touches on a nerve for many people. As someone who has just completed a car, and waiting for my first school, I can tell you that the wheel issue is a very large concern.

I actually held off buying any this year to wait and see what happens, as I do not wish to spend a small fortune to get 14 by 7's (2 sets) if 15's will be available. Of course, 14 by 7's aren't all that available, I've tried. You have to "wait for a run" if stocks are low.

My point is, people who are looking into building and expanding into the class are at a real disadvantage, not from a performace point of view, but economics and availability. This is an issue whether people here want to acknowlege it or not. It's not a matter of us wanting to be competitive, it's a matter of just getting on the track.

Options are: buy used, not good in my opinion, as I've experienced a wheel failure, or two, spend quite a bit more money ($1,600 to $2,000 depending on what you buy) and wait and wait for your wheels, and then hope that they are not obsolete in a short time when tire issues come about.

There has been quite a bit of talk about Comp. Adj. in IT, and the danger of shrinking class sizes because of it, but from my perspective, the wheel issue is an even greater area of concern. While not a consumable, wheels do not last forever, and sooner or later, even those with 14 by 7's and the like will have to replace them!

As for the argument that 15's are better than 14's etc., this is very car dependant. Right now, the same problems exist, it may change the nature somewhat, but it'll be the same. I've crewed for a professional team for many years, over several different sanctioning bodies (IMSA, Nascar, SCCA, Sportscar), and wheels are always an issue (except Nascar). We were mandated a smaller wheel back in the mid '90s at one point, and the car was faster at some tracks, slower at others, but not a lot either way. It think this part is getting blown out of proportion a bit.

Because of changing aftermarket tastes and trends, I think everyone here would agree that wheel sizes (and tires) are going to eventually have to be delt with. The question is, do we do it sooner than later, and is it something that is going to be forced, or willingly accepted.

Dave
 
Originally posted by racerdave600:
It's been interesting reading this post, and it certainly touches on a nerve for many people. As someone who has just completed a car, and waiting for my first school, I can tell you that the wheel issue is a very large concern.
Click to expand...

Dave and Others... this type of experience is invaluable in evaluating the need for such changes. PLEASE take the time to write this, either in an e-mail or letter, to the Compboard so more people can hear it. Copy and paste what you have here if that's easier for you, but BE HEARD, officially!

Thanks,




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg
 
Originally posted by racerdave600:
It's been interesting reading this post, and it certainly touches on a nerve for many people. As someone who has just completed a car, and waiting for my first school, I can tell you that the wheel issue is a very large concern.

I actually held off buying any this year to wait and see what happens, as I do not wish to spend a small fortune to get 14 by 7's (2 sets) if 15's will be available. Of course, 14 by 7's aren't all that available, I've tried. You have to "wait for a run" if stocks are low.

My point is, people who are looking into building and expanding into the class are at a real disadvantage, not from a performace point of view, but economics and availability. This is an issue whether people here want to acknowlege it or not. It's not a matter of us wanting to be competitive, it's a matter of just getting on the track.

Options are: buy used, not good in my opinion, as I've experienced a wheel failure, or two, spend quite a bit more money ($1,600 to $2,000 depending on what you buy) and wait and wait for your wheels, and then hope that they are not obsolete in a short time when tire issues come about.

There has been quite a bit of talk about Comp. Adj. in IT, and the danger of shrinking class sizes because of it, but from my perspective, the wheel issue is an even greater area of concern. While not a consumable, wheels do not last forever, and sooner or later, even those with 14 by 7's and the like will have to replace them!

As for the argument that 15's are better than 14's etc., this is very car dependant. Right now, the same problems exist, it may change the nature somewhat, but it'll be the same. I've crewed for a professional team for many years, over several different sanctioning bodies (IMSA, Nascar, SCCA, Sportscar), and wheels are always an issue (except Nascar). We were mandated a smaller wheel back in the mid '90s at one point, and the car was faster at some tracks, slower at others, but not a lot either way. It think this part is getting blown out of proportion a bit.

Because of changing aftermarket tastes and trends, I think everyone here would agree that wheel sizes (and tires) are going to eventually have to be delt with. The question is, do we do it sooner than later, and is it something that is going to be forced, or willingly accepted.

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, I rarely quote a post in its entirety, but yours just deserves to be repeated.

I plead with you to write the same thing to the CB. Your post is extremely articulate and I think it has potential to bring more serious debate on this issue within the ITAC and the CB. Please write. I support everything you said 100%. I'm sure Darin and Andy would support you as well. This is a serious issue in the club and you address it extemely well.


------------------
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 October 15, 2003).]
 
Guys, IIRC, it was this same kind of 'availability' arguement that got things like billet cranks allowed in Production. I still say that this is a textbook example of rules creep.

I'm curious as to how many of the cars in ITA and ITS came stock w/ 7" wide wheels?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
We need the IT historians** to check into the details but, Bill has jogged my memory...

It's my recollectiont that the allowance for 7" wheels in ITA does NOT date back to the creation of the category: Originally, only S cars were allowed 7" wheels.

That aside Dave's letter does an admirable job of explaining the big-picture rationale for a change. Unfortunately, it's historically the hundreds of very small-picture "I'm afraid my competitiveness will be compromised" rationales that drive these decisions.

K

** Seriously - this would be a great idea: Someone with a collection of all of the GCRs going back to the beginning of the category!

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited October 16, 2003).]
 
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...Someone with a collection of all of the GCRs going back to the beginning of the category!</font>
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the category specs, like ITCS, were sold boks separately-bound from the GCR. It wasn't until the early-90s that it all came in one book (except for those of us lucky enough to snag a copy of the double-super-secret large-print versions used by Tech personnel; those were all bound into one book starting around 1989, I think.)

Greg
 
Thanks George,

I actually did sit down last night and send an e-mail off to the CB, not only on the wheel issues, but also on Comp. Adjustments.

The wheel issue is something I've been struggling with for about 2 months now, so I suppose I have a stake in its outcome. I also think that unless you're maxed out in car prep and driver development, the size difference is not the factor that most people think. In fact, it will probably hurt more cars than help to go up an inch if anything. What you gain in turn-in, you'll lose in final drive in most cases, but I really do not want to jump into this argument.

Thanks again,

Dave
 
Tim,

That's essentially the same battle some of the ITS guys fought for the cars that came w/ 16" wheels.

Gotta admit, seems odd that you can't use the stock wheels that came on the car.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Tim,

That's essentially the same battle some of the ITS guys fought for the cars that came w/ 16" wheels.
Click to expand...

Bill,
Just curious as the what "battle" you are referring to? Is it the 2nd Gens plight to get 16" wheels approved? I ask because there was no battle at all to get the 16" spec'd for the '95-'97 240SX... I asked them what they needed, they told me, I sent it in, they were approved and published. The only case where I can see that they might NOT be approved is one where they were not truely a factory piece, but instead a dealer installed option or something from a special package... Interesting... Just chaulk it up to another inconsistancy if this was truely not the case, because the way I read the rules, if they were an option for the model classified (that's a big piece there, because there is a difference if say the "SE" model is classed as opposed to a standard non-"SE" model...) they should be legal...

If it were my car and I wanted them and had the appropriate documentation... I'd write until I got what was appropriate...




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg
 
Great example of a problem in the process (or non-process) applied to IT rules making...

There is no guideline or precedent for how to address the question of 16" wheels in a class that (implicitly) presumes the maximum that would ever appear are 15s. In one case - grounded in a particular context and time - the allowance of 16" wheels was seen to be a problem and were disallowed: In the second, the time and context were different so they WERE allowed.

In both cases, the action was a de facto competition adjustment because the allowance/disallowance was made based on perceptions of what would happen to affected models' competitiveness.

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
In both cases, the action was a de facto competition adjustment because the allowance/disallowance was made based on perceptions of what would happen to affected models' competitiveness.

K
Click to expand...

Oh, I doubt it very seriously... Wasn't the RX-7 issue (and this is not based on any knowledge really whatso-ever
wink.gif
) a case of inability to discern which models the 16" wheels came on and which model was actually classified? If the 16" wheels were only available on the GTU model, and the model classified is the standard not-GTU model, then 16" wheels would not be allowed per the existing rules... For the Nissan, the model classified is the model that came with 16" wheels, so it's a no-brainer.

I submit that if the proper documentation exists, then the rules will be followed. I doubt anyone worried about whether allowing 16" wheels on the 240SX, or the Porsche, or ??? was going to rock the "competition" boat...

Of course... that's just my take... I could be wrong...
wink.gif





------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top