Wheel width, ITB, again

What are your thoughts in wheel widths in ITB and ITC?

  • Leave rule as-is.

    Votes: 44 36.4%

  • Allow OEM wheels (even if wider than 6")

    Votes: 13 10.7%

  • Allow stock-SIZED wheels (even if wider than 6")

    Votes: 11 9.1%

  • Move ITC and ITB to 7" width

    Votes: 44 36.4%

  • Open up IT to any wheel size (that fits within fender rules)

    Votes: 19 15.7%
  • Total voters
    121
R

rlward

New member
Does anyone think it might be time to revisit wheel width for ITB again? I have not ben able to find a set of 15 X 6 with 5 X 100 bolt pattern that weigh less than 20lbs.

It seems to me the argument for or against should be based on what is currently available in the marketplace without having to have custom rims made or looking at wrecking yards. I don't know about other bolt patterns or if any body else is having a hard time finding what they need.

It also seems that as cars are reclassifed, the complete car should be moved including the wheel size and the rules modified as needed by the reclasification.

Although I could find someone to make 15 x 6 wheels, the cost was $240/wheel for an aluminum wheel. Some may find this price acceptable, but I don't. Makers of wheels tend to change with the times and sizes that don't sell are discontinued.

Thoughts?
 
rlward said:
Does anyone think it might be time to revisit wheel width for ITB again? I have not ben able to find a set of 15 X 6 with 5 X 100 bolt pattern that weigh less than 20lbs.

It seems to me the argument for or against should be based on what is currently available in the marketplace without having to have custom rims made or looking at wrecking yards. I don't know about other bolt patterns or if any body else is having a hard time finding what they need.

It also seems that as cars are reclassifed, the complete car should be moved including the wheel size and the rules modified as needed by the reclasification.

Although I could find someone to make 15 x 6 wheels, the cost was $240/wheel for an aluminum wheel. Some may find this price acceptable, but I don't. Makers of wheels tend to change with the times and sizes that don't sell are discontinued.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...


I am not a fan of changing rules like you suggest simply because several people (including myself) have an investment in the current rules set. If we constantly change to meet what the market sells then we will have to continually re-invest in something that may work just fine how it is. While cheaper for those trying to get in, it will cost you more in the long run.

We have not changed from the 14" wheel to a 15" wheel for the same reason I stated (can't afford the re-investment). I would be upset if I did buy 15X6 wheels only to have the rule change again a year later.

With all that said, I personaly don't think I would not be upset if the rule did end up changing.

Raymond "Believer in rules stability" Blethen
 
I do not think the wheel width should increase. I do not want to have to purchase all new rims to "stay up width" the competition. Some will argue that you don't need to purchase all new rims and tires... well then why does anyone want the larger ones?

I DO think that if a car is classified that comes with a larger wider tire that is should be allowed the larger tire size and that this should be considered when it is classified.

Stephen
 
StephenB said:
I do not think the wheel width should increase. I do not want to have to purchase all new rims...
Click to expand...
This is the common response from ITB competitors each time this issue is breached.

However, no ITB competitors have offered "My position is XXX, because I believe it's good for the class, and here's why." This is right inline with Kirk's assertion that almost all rules requests are done with a selfish motive. While there's nothing specifically wrong with that, it's not a good basis for a policy change (nor a good basis for resisting a policy change).

Look at the New Beetle topic: for all you competitors that don't want to change the rules because of selfish reasons, how do you propose anyone wishing to prep a NB for ITC resolve that situation?

So, try assuming that you're not an ITB or ITC competitor. Try assuming you do not own even one 6" wheel. Then, think about what's best for the class, best for its long-term future, and best for attracting the most competitors to your class.

Greg
 
Last edited:
Greg Amy said:
So, try assuming that you're not an ITB or ITC competitor. Try assuming you do not own even one 6" wheel. Then, think about what's best for the class, best for its long-term future, and best for attracting the most competitors to your class.

Greg
Click to expand...


Greg-

A good practice to attract new competitors is to change the rules to meet the current trends in the automotive market. Things like big wheels, useless wings and ground effects? However for the long term, we need to maintain some class rules stability. Changing things like wheels sizes every year or two to keep up with the "trends" could have its benefits and its negatives. So far I have not seen a negative to increasing the wheel size from 14" to 15" eventhough I have not made that change yet.

It is an interesting balance... Attract newbies and keep the old timers happy :)

Raymond
 
Just Kirk talking but there's a difference between changing diameter and changing width, in terms of proximal impact on performance - particularly for heavier cars that may already be overworking tires at one end or the other.

Read Greg's post again. It's got to be about what's best for the category, and that's what the ITAC wrestles with.

K
 
Are you saying that what is good for my car is not good for the class? I thought I was a member of the class..... It is a selfish reason to let me use 7" wide rims; I can't find aftermarket 6". I was ITA and did buy 7" just months before the change to ITB was even suggested. I did have to shelve the 7". Selfish, yes. Good for the class, yes. Would anybody else benifit from moving to 7" in ITB? Yes if they could not find 6" wide in the their bolt pattern. Is there a competitive advantage, probably assuming you found lighter wheels.

No one is compelled to purchase another set of wheels just because a rule changes other than those that are moved from, say ITA, to ITB. I was, now I can't find wheels other than stock 20lb wheels.

Maybe we should look at why some people don't want to keep in line with new market trends...Maybe they are the ones that already have a good source of available wheels and they are the selfish ones! Every question put out should be first answered at home.
 
Any of the second gen neon wheels should fit the bill and weigh less than 20 lbs. What you really need to find is a set of trunk kit wheels for the neon they are 15 x 6 with a 400mm offset and weigh IIRC 15.6 lbs. Look over on neons.org. There were several sets for sale the past few months.
 
roger, just want to make sure i am understanding a couple of things:

1)
I was ITA and did buy 7" just months before the change to ITB was even suggested.
Click to expand...

sounds like your car went from ITA to ITB much like my 85 CRX Si. i too had 14x7's and then had to get some 6's. pretty painful from a $$ viewpoint. of course, since i have 13x6 panas and some 14x7 panas, maybe no one will notice if i swap.......

i would not have an issue with your wanting to run another size since it is similar to the issue of having to use factory parts and then there are no factory parts available. is there any possibility of running something other than 15" (both rules wise or from a physical clearance issue)?

2)
It also seems that as cars are reclassifed, the complete car should be moved including the wheel size and the rules modified as needed by the reclasification.
Click to expand...

my version ITB car (85-87) crx si came with either 13x5 or 14x5 wheels. going to 6" rims is not much of a stretch. if i had a newer B car that came with 15x7 or 16 x 6.5, etc., i would be pretty bummed if i could not use the car's OEM wheels.

i think there needs to room for this. i do not relish the ITAC group for having to consider this but if there is considerations for HP, Torque, weight, suspension, etc., it would seem that a consideration for weight adjustment for wheel width is not that far fetched.

not wanting to start a NASA debate but does Performance Touring have such an adjustment?
 
Hypothetical (VERY) question: So which is the correct option?

1. Allow cars moving from ITA to ITB to run with 7" wheels at their B weight as established by the specification process, or...

2. Allow that subgroup of cars to run 7" wheels but with a weight penalty to account for the increased performance of the wider wheels, or...

3. Allow everyone to run 7" wheels with no weight penalty, or...

4. Allow everyone to run 7" wheels with more weight, or...

5. Throw up our arms and let everyone run anything that will fit under stock fenders

Did I forget any options?

K
 
Greg Amy said:
This is the common response from ITB competitors each time this issue is breached.

However, no ITB competitors have offered "My position is XXX, because I believe it's good for the class, and here's why." This is right inline with Kirk's assertion that almost all rules requests are done with a selfish motive. While there's nothing specifically wrong with that, it's not a good basis for a policy change (nor a good basis for resisting a policy change).

Look at the New Beetle topic: for all you competitors that don't want to change the rules because of selfish reasons, how do you propose anyone wishing to prep a NB for ITC resolve that situation?

So, try assuming that you're not an ITB or ITC competitor. Try assuming you do not own even one 6" wheel. Then, think about what's best for the class, best for its long-term future, and best for attracting the most competitors to your class.

Greg
Click to expand...

I am sorry greg but I believe I answered the original question, I had no intent to write to SCCA with the argument I wrote above. The question said Thoughts? which to me implied the poster wanted to get feedback on how it affected us AKA me and anyone else that responded.

To Answer Gregs question: (Not really a defence on why it is better for the class since I don't think I should be writing to the ITAC to defend the rules set in the GCR!) My position is to follow the GCR rules, because I believe it's good for the class, and here's why please refer to both sections A.purpose and B. Intent of section 9.1.3 in the GCR


To Answer Kirks Question:
FOLLOW THE RULES in the GCR for the Improved Touring Catagory and instead consider DUAL CLASSIFICATIONS so that members don't get hit with a huge bill/burden to continue to race with us.

As far as newer cars with bigger wheels being classified then that should get considered upon being considered for classification. again this is part of section A. Purpose and addressed in the second sentence. If the ITAC thinks it's necasary to have additional wieght added then that is up to them. A section of the GCR labeled "notes" is part of every car classified and is utilized in IT for special considerations on items offered from that factory that are "out of the norm" and could be questionable.

I do feel sympathy for the poster that started this thread because his car was reclassified. In my opinion that is the error/mistake that the ITAC and the CRB needs to consider. He should be able to run his car in ITA as he original created the car at the original specifications he built his car to. When and if the car is Dual Classed not RE-classed he could then incurr the expense of new rims if he wanted to switch classes. I agree that what the ITAC and CRB did to him is a deterent and an unfair cost that he had to incurr. My solution would be for the ITAC and CRB to fix the mistake they made and Dual Class his car.



Stephen
 
Last edited:
I read in what you wrote, Stephen, that when you say "mistake" you don't just mean that others might differ in their thinking and make another decision. You are suggesting - I think - that the ITAC didn't "FOLLOW THE RULES in the GCR." Is that what you're saying and, if so, how do you think we screwed up?

K
 
There are several ways this topic could be viewed. In one sense, you're taking a car that was uncompetitive and putting it in a class where it has a shot. Even using 20 lb rims, it certainly has a better opportunity than in the previous class.

How many cars are being impacted? Opening up the rules to 7" rims has a much better impact on the drivers in the class.

Possibly adding extra weight to cars for using 7" rims might be an option. It will get complicated though.

Maybe cars being moved can have a dual classification for X number of years.
 
NO both the things you quoted are in very different topics in diffent paragraphs:


What I mean by "FOLLOW THE RULES" is that I think that we should continue to follow the Current Rules and not change the current wheel widths. Unless we are considering a new car that comes Stock with something different as I think I explained my personal opinion that I think best benefits the class and all members.

As far as the "error/mistake" mentioned in a later paragraph simply ment that I sympathise with the original poster because the ITAC forced him to purchase all new wheels and I think SCCA made a mistake/error that should be reconsidered. so I guess its a matter of opinion and mine is much different than the one that was made to Re-Classify cars and incurr large costs to current members rather than to dual Classify cars and give members a choice.

Sorry for the confusion,
Stephen
 
Last edited:
possibility #7 might be a fix for only this situation and not good as a "policy/rule" would be to allow the use of the 4 bolt hubs and 13-14" wheels of the other ITB Dodge 024 chargers etc.

i just looked at the GCR and i might be off in what cars i remember being the same basic body style. no real idea if this is a hard or expensive fix.

just tossing this out as a possibility in the form of electronic brainstorming.....
 
OK, I'm gonna skip all the replies here and go back to address the orig post - 'cause I think there's a bit of wandering induced.

Inevitably when ITB wheel width comes up, it's a discussion of supply. Yet, at the same time, it tends to be a statement of "this will save me money/give better/faster options" rather than "I can't find ANYTHING that will fit, at any reasonable cost."

On that basis right there - it seems that this proposal will not be consistent with IT philosophy, no?

Alternate parts may be allowed if proof of unobtainable originals can be provided, but this usually also is applied to where only original, unmodified OEM parts are required, and aftermarket parts aren't allowed.

So here IMO we seem to fall into the category of "I can't get good aftermarket parts cheap enough." Though allowing us to race cheap certainly is a goal of IT (especially ITB cars!) - that may come at the cost of speed. I'm not talking about things like shocks, but rather, OK, let's say, dog-tooth transmissions.

Seems to me you yourself have stated that you do have options - heavy stock rims, or expensive aftermarket rims - they're just not attractive to you.

And this is where we get into the old "you made that choice when you built the car."

I too have a former ITA car that moved to ITB; we too had to pitch a bunch of 7" readily-available old factory rims (from 944s) to use only 924-specific, harder-to-find rims. And I know that, like you, my aftermarket options are really going to suck. In fact, they'll be worse than yours, since my bolt pattern is Porsche-specific, and no-one's buying Porsche rims in 15" diameters, let alone 6" wide!!!

I have other things about my car that suck; for example, while you guys can put any spring rate on your struts you want, I have to pay at least $400 for a pair of racing-appropriate torsion bars for the rear of the car, and in fact mine cost $600+ since they're custom - required to get the rate I needed.

That's the bed we've all individually made, and now we can lie in it... or move to a different car. Personally, I'm happy to stay in B, skinny wheels and all!!!
 
1. When I threw this question out, I was wanting to get some feedback one the idea of considering changes to the rules based on the marketplace and availablility of parts. We have allowed changes base on parts and system developments before. Take the open ECU issue. It has far more serious implications on IT than the question of 7 " rims in ITB. Yet, because there are many drivers running FI, it passed the muster really quite easily. I must have been because the marketplace made somthing available that made working on your OEM ECU outdated or harder or more expensive.

2. I believe when the issue of ITA cars being reclassified came up about 2 years ago, there was mention that there was no competitive advantage of 7" over 6" rims. If that be the case, then to allow 7" in ITB would not affect the status of any other driver/car because it would not put the pressure on to go out and buy another set of whels.

I would suggest a test, using the same tires and same car/driver to verify no advantage is observed. I run SM Hoosiers, they fit both 6" and 7" rims. The Club does tire tests every year I think. We could run this test with both FWD and RWD cars to gain some data and review the results. Of course pressures would have to be adjusted with trial runs to gain the set data for the 2 different sizes.

This, cosidering all the responses to my original inquiry might be the best way to see through everyone's opinion and gain real data on which to base our rule making process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top