Wheel width, ITB, again

[Greg Amy]

...people who have been running 13" or 14" rims now have their gearing changed. Great, just great.

Not true, Dave, it depends on your tire size. 205/60-13, 205/55-14, and 205/50-15 Hoosiers are all the exact same circumference. Besides, that's totally irrelevant, given that final drives are free in IT.

Look, are we going to legislate based on what's good for a few competitors, or what's good for the status quo, or are we going to do it for what's good for everyone current and future not to mention for the best helath of the class going forward (keep in mind, after ITC is finally dead, ITB is next...)? If you were designing ITB from scratch with no existing knowledge of what it is today, no knowledge of who's got what in wheel "inventory" (and no concern for it, regardless), yet you know that ITS and ITA are running 7" wheels and you have access to the availability of 15x7 versus 13x6, 14x6, or 15x6 wheels, would you actually mandate a 6" wide wheel for ITB and ITC from scratch?

If we are going to legislate based on who's-doing-what now simply in order to maintain the status quo, and we're going to legislate based on what current competitors want, we better DAMN well be prepared to accomodate ALL current competitors, not just those of a few, and we better damn well be prepared to accept what that may mean for the future. 'Cause the current crop of competitors ain't gonna be that forever...

Just sayin'.

GA

 

[StephenB]

Not true, Dave, it depends on your tire size. 205/60-13, 205/55-14, and 205/50-15 Hoosiers are all the exact same circumference. Besides, that's totally irrelevant, given that final drives are free in IT.

Look, are we going to legislate based on what's good for a few competitors, or what's good for the status quo, or are we going to do it for what's good for everyone current and future not to mention for the best helath of the class going forward (keep in mind, after ITC is finally dead, ITB is next...)? If you were designing ITB from scratch with no existing knowledge of what it is today, no knowledge of who's got what in wheel "inventory" (and no concern for it, regardless), yet you know that ITS and ITA are running 7" wheels and you have access to the availability of 15x7 versus 13x6, 14x6, or 15x6 wheels, would you actually mandate a 6" wide wheel for ITB and ITC from scratch?

If we are going to legislate based on who's-doing-what now simply in order to maintain the status quo, and we're going to legislate based on what current competitors want, we better DAMN well be prepared to accomodate ALL current competitors, not just those of a few, and we better damn well be prepared to accept what that may mean for the future. 'Cause the current crop of competitors ain't gonna be that forever...

Just sayin'.

GA

I agree with greg... I think we should do whats good for everyone now and for the future. lets keep the current rules!

 

[bamfp]

SSR makes a 15x6 wheel that is in the 9# range. In a 4x100 4x114 and 5x114. Some other people have asked to allow alternate bolt patterns for an easier choice of wheels. I know that it was turned down.
http://www.ssr-wheels.com/wheels/typec_171819.asp

Blake Meredith

 

[StephenB]

I honestly don't know this answer but after reading gregs post is is safe to assume that the ITA cars that were moved to ITB came stock with 7" wide rims? Is it true that cars being classified now and into the future all come stock with 7" wide rims? If all the newer cars being classified have 7" wide rims stock then I may agree with going wider based on the intent and philosophy of IT. the sooner we do the change the better (assuming someday in the near future we will need to) I would rather do it sooner than later while the class is in its "restructure"

Stephen

 

[RexRacer19]

See above, T-Rex. Try that same search for '00 Honda Accord 4 cyl (4x114.3 bolt pattern)...Tire Rack has nothing (as in, zero) in 14" at all, nothing in 15x6, the lightest wheels are all 15x7, and all other 15-inchers are 15x6.5....Chris offered some options, but there's nothing in 9# for under $400-ish, leaving, of course, the Honda Accord in a significant position of performance disadvantage (remembering, of course, our prior arguments where saving money is actually a long-term performance advantage...)

So, since we're all making rules on what's best for individuals' selfish interests...how do we resolve this situation...? <yes, I'm grinning...see where I'm going with this...?> - GA

So, when is the best time to bring up that there is no guarantee as to a car's competitiveness, choose your weapon wisely, and there is no such thing as cost control in racing?

 

[Z3_GoCar]

So, when is the best time to bring up that there is no guarantee as to a car's competitiveness, choose your weapon wisely, and there is no such thing as cost control in racing?

More like after the OP objected to having his car moved to ITB and it was moved anyway. As for Rodger's competitiveness in ITA he only had to watch out for double dipping miatae. Also if I remember correctly he's running the OE rims that came with the car, now how messed up is that

 

[lateapex911]

... is is safe to assume that the ITA cars that were moved to ITB came stock with 7" wide rims?

No.

Is it true that cars being classified now and into the future all come stock with 7" wide rims?

No.

 

[jjjanos]

[

I'm struck by the fact that what you think is "absurd," I (and I daresay some other ITAC members) view as one of the most crucial first principles of the category.K

I'm struck with how you don't realize that moving cars around and monkeying around with the classification method (i.e. changing weights) is the antithesis of rules stability.

I'm struck with how you don't realize that changing the car classification method (see: great realignment, see:FWD adder discussion) stinks of competition adjustment and monkeying around with the rules to equalize competition.

I'd find it a lot less absurd - both in terms of the universal limitation and the refusal to make spec line adjustments for the exiled cars - if there was a valid reason for the constraint in the first place.

Really? A new set of pimpy light wheels = 1 (maybe 2 if they are uber-custom-light) race weekend expenses. You run a short season, or are not being fully truthful. Sure buying 3-4 sets of wheels is very expensive, but I would get a set and go racing if faced with that situation.

OK, not 100% truthful. I'd do my 2 races to keep my license current. Pissing away $1,600 for no good reason eats a big chunk of my racing budget. And while I probably could pick stock wheels for a lot less, that's just an additional instance of pissing away money because the pimpy light wheels are going to get bought eventually. I just took a $2,100 hit to the wallet for a non-racing expense and I'm trying to convince myself I shouldn't park the car after this weekend.

 

[rlward]

Imagine, if you will, I have those 4 sets of 7" 10#rims (not really, but just imagine) All the reclassed runners have 16 rims in 7" in 10# with tires and you moved us. Now as the market has changed and we have used our old stock of four OEM 20# rims, we are now looking for a reasonable source of 10# 6" rims. But we have oddball bolt patterns and backsets. Spinwerks has exactly 4 15X6" rims to mount on custom centers at $231/each (call her to verify). So that leaves out all the other runners unless they have a more common 4 bolt pattern. Some one suggested I change to 4 bolt, I don't even want to think about that cost 'cause then I have to scrap the 5 bolt inventory I have.

SO the posibilities are:
1. I don't run the next 3 races to buy the last of the 6" rims in existance and then lo and behold some on the (thunder and lightning) ITAB realizes that the best for IT is the change the rules for whatever reason and presto chango the 6" rims are no longer the rule of the land!!!!!and I spent $1000 on useless rims.
2. Don't do anything now and someone else takes a chance and buys those last 4 rims and I am out of luck for any 10# rims.
3. Leave IT for another group.

I don't like any of the above. I know there is no answer that will satisfy the wants/needs of every racer in IT as far a wheel size goes. But a plan to globally address the issue with fore thought needs to be put in place. The market does change, and wheel sizes fall out of favor and are dropped. We need to adapt the rules for IT as a whole so this question is settled once and for all. I am not talking rule creep, but rather rule forethought. In my book fender limits seems the best option as there is a rule in place for tires now that seem to hav pased the test of time. A fender rule would tie the whole thing together in a neat package that is easy to understand and is flexible enough to allow changes in the market over time without further rule changes. After a time, the dust would settle and things would stabilize. Maybe a transition period with added weight would help the situation.

 

[lateapex911]

I highly doubt choice number 1 will happen.

#2 is hypothetical and based on lots of supposition. Let's suppose the we look at the actual situation...

#3 isn't the "budget choice" either...

So, let's stop supposing. Tell us what you actually DID run in ITA. ANd what size are the stock rims??

Finally, I see you seem attached to the Dodge...that's fine, but emotional attachments often carry prices. That price could be less common wheels due to the unusual bolt pattern and offset, even when new. Trust me, I know it's not easy to find wheels in the older sizes. I need 13" x 7 ...they don't grow on trees.

And, also, lets be pragmatic....your car has been classed since the 80s....over 20 years. In the mid to late 90s, big changes occurred that made your car utterly uncompetitive in ITA. (You might not have felt those changes, but the class was home to a dominant car, and the Dodge was rendered a has been). Your car was given a new lease on life in a move to ITB. Most guys who have been moved from ITA to ITB and have added to this thread have said that it was a gift. Heck, some guys have thanked me personally.

In other words, I'm having a hard time seeing how changing everything so that you can benefit will serve the entire class. Because if the rule is changed, here are the KNOWN outcomes:

• Some cars can fit wider tires, others can not. Therefor, competitive balance is upset. This is BAD.
• The cars that can benefit might be the top dogs currently. Now we could be looking at a narrower choice of top dogs. That's BAD.
• Perhaps there is ONE car that really benefits and becomes the car to have. Again, very BAD.
• Track records are reset, solely due to the equipment change. Bad.
• Many see the need to scrap their stock of rims and pony up, thinking that the new size is faster. Might not be...at least for them. Money wasted. Bad.
• Many others flat can't fit them. Now we're saying "Tough crappola" to THOSE guys, instead of the vast minority of the cars that have been moved from ITA AND have difficulty finding light ....yet cheap...wheels.

Again, I see no solution that doesn't hurt MORE people...

 

[gran racing]

Besides, that's totally irrelevant, given that final drives are free in IT.

Many ITB competitors are using 225/45/13 hoosiers which have a circ. of 65.8. The 225/45/15 has a circ. of 72.0. That's a decent difference. While final drives are free, we are now going against one of the intended purposes of this suggested 7" wide rule change.

I personally use a size where the circ could stay the same if I switched to 15s.

If you were designing ITB from scratch with no existing knowledge of what it is today

That's the problem Greg, we're not designing any IT classes from scratch. If we were, my focus would be on not allowing any modifications to ECUs - it has to be bone stock. Yet again we're already a ways down that road. I understand the point you're trying to make, I just don't agree with it.

are we going to legislate based on what's good for a few competitors, or what's good for the status quo, or are we going to do it for what's good for everyone current and future not to mention for the best helath of the class going forward (keep in mind, after ITC is finally dead, ITB is next...)?

For a minute I thought you were now convinced staying with the 6" width rule is the right move. LOL The few competitors - that would be the cars moving from ITA to ITB, not all of the existing ITB and ITC drivers.

We have a couple of people here who are upset about buying new 6" wide rims. I'm sure I'd be frustrated by the change myself if in their shoes. Well, actually I was in a similar situation but was absolutely psyched about the change. I still get it though.

Since I highly doubt the dual classification idea will be approved, what about adding a percentage of the car's min weight to cars which are being moved from ITA to ITB if they want to run 7" rims? Make this allowance good for one year to enable competitors to make their decisions on how they want to proceed. I know it still won't make everyone happy; nothing will.

 

[Greg Amy]

So, when is the best time to bring up that there is no guarantee as to a car's competitiveness, choose your weapon wisely, and there is no such thing as cost control in racing?

Ah, the last desperate gasp of Improved Touring debate...once breached, that position ensures we're close to the end of the discussion...

Hmmmm.....though, given that the whole original reason for the 6"-wide limitation was for cost containment, you might be on to something there...

While final drives are free, we are now going against one of the intended purposes of this suggested 7" wide rule change.

Which is...?

That's the problem Greg, we're not designing any IT classes from scratch.

Yes, we are. ITR, for example. All done as a way to increase/maintain the viability of Improved Touring as automotive - and aftermarket - technology moves forward (e.g., ECU rule, shericals, threaded-bosy shocks) Why not keep those same goals in mind to ensure the viability of ITB and ITC going forward?

For a minute I thought you were now convinced staying with the 6" width rule is the right move. LOL

You (rightfully) mis-read my intent for participating in this discussion. Though I purchased in ITB car on a lark, I really have no dog in the fight; it is not my intention to play in that gene pool in perpetuity. If you suggest to change the width rule, I won't oppose it; you fight to maintain it, I won't oppose you.

No, the REAL reason I'm participating in this fight is to illustrate the ABSURDITY (sorry, couldn't resist) and lack of logic when discussing such issues. You will find VERY FEW existing ITB competitors that agree with the idea of changing the width rule, and you will find VERY FEW non-ITB (or ITC) competitors that really care about it. However, you will find more than a few guys that may be considering entering into ITB (willingly or unwillingly) that find this rule perplexing. Is that a barrier to entry into ITB? And, if so, isn't that nothing but a "protectionist" measure for the status quo?

Dave, what if it was proposed to increase the ITA and ITS wheel widths to 8.5"; would you even care? Would you write a letter about it? If you did care, would you fight it as vociferously as I infer you'd fight a change in ITB? If you have even the slightest "no" to those questions, then what we're talking about here is what's good for Dave Gran, not what's good for ITB. And that's a TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE basis for rules-making.

GA

 

[Knestis]

I'm going to try to make a point here that's CLEARLY in the realm of semantics, but argue that it's crucial to this - and a lot of other - conversations: It's problematic to apply a term or concept to different levels of granularity, without recognizing that they mean different things or have different implications.

For example, arguing that (whatever) is the same for the entire category as it is to individual cases of cars or entrants IN that category can result in bad policy and unintended consequences, or at least result in specious arguments.

"Competition adjustment" - As traditionally applied, these are make/model-specific changes in specification, applied to either improve the competitive position of one car or to hobble one other. They are almost always based on observed on-track competitiveness, most notably from results at high-profile events like the Rub-Offs. The current ITAC changing a process or practice applicable to the entire category is by definition not a competition adjustment, EVEN IF some individual examples of car get "adjusted" as a result of being out of line.

"Rules Stability" - When operationalized for the the category, stability may be more about internal consistency. I'll grant that they are different things but the lines get blurry when more than a few people are involved in the conversation. In order to develop practices and processes to assure consistency over time (category-level stability) it is necessary for the specifications to change for specific individual make/model examples in the transition - rules INstability for those few.

We're NOT insensitive to those impositions but I'm pretty confidendent that our obligation is to the category, first and foremost.

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

So the questions remain:

1. Is the 6" wheel limitation in ITB/ITC pushing current competitors OUT?
2. Is the 6" wheel limitation in ITB/ITC a barrier to new cas being built?
3. Would moving to 7" (or totally open for that matter) upset the current membership?
4. Would moving to 7" (or totally open for that matter) draw more cars/drivers INTO Improved Touring?
5. Is there REALLY a supply problem currently or just a lack of mid-range choices? Heavy stuff and expensive stuff seem available.
6. How long do you 'hold' on the rules in the name of stability - at the potential cost of 'futures'? What are the appropriate triggers for a change? (See questions 1-4)
7. Do you force change and evolution (like stock class Solo) or do you try and archive and protect every driver and every car?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg,

If you actually took a position, what would it be and why?

 

[jjjanos]

I'm going to try to make a point here that's CLEARLY in the realm of semantics, but argue that it's crucial to this - and a lot of other - conversations: It's problematic to apply a term or concept to different levels of granularity, without recognizing that they mean different things or have different implications.

For example, arguing that (whatever) is the same for the entire category as it is to individual cases of cars or entrants IN that category can result in bad policy and unintended consequences, or at least result in specious arguments.

"Competition adjustment" - As traditionally applied, these are make/model-specific changes in specification, applied to either improve the competitive position of one car or to hobble one other. They are almost always based on observed on-track competitiveness, most notably from results at high-profile events like the Rub-Offs. The current ITAC changing a process or practice applicable to the entire category is by definition not a competition adjustment, EVEN IF some individual examples of car get "adjusted" as a result of being out of line.

Which is some fine and fancy footwork that allows you to reconcile making competition adjustments while remaining true to the doctrine of no competition adjustments. Essentially, you are trying to argue that it wasn't cheating "cause Honey, I was thinking of you the entire time."

1. Whether they admit it, and whether they recognize it, the ITAC used observed on-track performance and other similar taboo observations in determining that changes to the categorization method was required. If the ITAC didn't use this, they wouldn't have known that there was any need to alter the categorization or have a Great Realignment. The Great Realignment and the FWD adder proposal did not derive from "First Principles" and a thought experiment. They occured because of what was observed. The fact that the realignment worked does not mean that this was not a prod-like adjustment; The fact that it worked means that IT was better at it than Prod.

2. The changes were done because some cars were better and some cars were worse and the ultimate purpose was to adjust the competition balance. Whether it is done to an entire community (IT policy) or specific members (Prod policy) is irrelevant - that's a matter of scope, not intent. Again, the fact that it was needed to restore competition balance doesn't mitigate the competition adjustment - the catch all "no car guaranteed competiveness" clause already addressed the concerns of the cars that needed realignment.

3. Prod makes changes that renders the investment made in certain cars and equipment on those cars less valuable. Changing FWD adders does the same thing. Again, only a difference in scope.

I'm in favor of getting the system correct, but let's call these changes what they are - competition adjustments.

 

[Greg Amy]

If you actually took a position, what would it be and why?

In a vacuum, I see no reason for the difference in wheel widths for ITC and ITB. If I were designing from scratch today, I'd probably leave 'em open to the 7" as in ITA, primarily due to the "apparent" wider availability of 7" wide wheels these days. However, I understand the historical significance of the rule, primarily based on the availability and cost of wheels at the time, as well as a mindset approaching the "average" wheel widths of the cars classified back in the 80's (typically 5" or 5.5", with 6" being offered on the performance high side; e.g. the 14x6 of the 1983 Rabbit GTi versus the 13x5.5 for the regular Rabbit LX), on par with the ITAC's recommendation to go with 8.5" wheels in ITR due to those being stock on the BMW.

I am not insensitive to the situation faced by current competitors vis-a-vis potentially making their wheel inventory obsolete. However, I do not believe current inventory should be a decisive factor in the decision (i.e., it should be considered in the whole of the decision, but not used as a go/no go factor). If that were a deciding factor, then the ITAC would have no standing for moving a car from ITA to ITB (and, in fact, having the same size wheels would make those decisions easier).

Further, one cannot ignore that if the rule were to change, the rules would not REQUIRE 7" wheels. I question the significance of the performance value of a 225 tire on 7" wheels over a 225 tire on 6" wheels, so I'm not too concerned about it. As such, the existing "inventory" of 6" wheels would not truly become obsolete.

But, given we're not in a vacuum, I would want to research the general availability of wheels in 13, 14, and 15 inch by 6 wide versus 7 wide for the vast majority of cars currently in the class and those that potentially could be added or moved within the next 3-5 years (effectively ignoring the outliers that no one actually drives), and choose the width that most effectively covers the field with available, reasonably-priced, and reasonable-weight wheels. From extremely simple personal knowledge and anecdotal evidence, that size appears to be 15x7.

GA

 

[spnkzss]

What if we just removed the width rule all together in IT? What kind of implications would we look at there? You can only go so wide because you have to stay within' the body limits.

Keep the diameter rule the same, maybe. I haven't quite figured out the reasoning for diameter much either, but I'm sure someone would be happy to fill me in. With the shock rules in IT you wouldn't want to run a 225/25/19. Who knows, maybe you would.

I can see how this could snowball.

Me personally, think that ITB/ITC should be allowed 7", but my only REAL reason to me is I can't figure out why they shouldn't be allowed.

 

[lateapex911]

What if we just removed the width rule all together in IT? What kind of implications would we look at there? You can only go so wide because you have to stay within' the body limits.

The diameter allowance was instituted because it was felt that performance benefits gained by increasing wheel diameters were highly debateable, and minimal in scope in the best cases. Lot's of balancing tradeoffs are involved there.

Width, however, is another story.

So, my answer to your question of implications is my bulleted points above;
http://72.167.111.130/forums/showpost.php?p=288686&postcount=70

 

[Knestis]

Which is some fine and fancy footwork that allows you to reconcile making competition adjustments while remaining true to the doctrine of no competition adjustments. ...

1. Whether they admit it, and whether they recognize it, the ITAC used observed on-track performance and other similar taboo observations in determining that changes to the categorization method was required. ...

2. The changes were done because some cars were better and some cars were worse and the ultimate purpose was to adjust the competition balance. Whether it is done to an entire community (IT policy) or specific members (Prod policy) is irrelevant ...

...I'm in favor of getting the system correct, but let's call these changes what they are - competition adjustments.

I could couch this in terms of "agree to disagree" but I prefer "You are wrong."

You have a definition of "competition adjustment" that's very different in important functional ways but that's fine, as long as the audience understands the distinctions I'm trying to make.

You're also ascribing motivations to others without knowing much about what's really going on. Again, that's understandable, you're always allowed your opinions, and it's only a problem for me if others buy into your suppositions. I was charged by the ITAC to review a bunch of ITB cars against current practices, most of which I have absolutely no understanding of in terms of their on-track performance. And frankly, I don't trust my own observations for those with which I AM familiar, because I know good and well they are biased and based on gawdawful small samples of cases with a zillion uncontrolled variables.

I totally understand your point about obvserved performance contributing to the "motivations" for looking at problematic cases but there's a world of difference between that and using those differences as evidence to actually change race weights (for example). Members perceive inequalities and ask us to "do something." All we can do is review make/model specs to see if they align to current, consistent practices and make a recommendation to the Board for a change if they don't.

The difference between that and "The Renault Encore is too fast, give it 200 pounds" should be self-evident. That's all I care about.

Again, these can be narrow distictions (or "fancy footwork?") but I believe strongly that there's a FAR lower chance of shenanigans when changes - call them whatever you want - are applied to the entire category in transparent, repeatable ways; than when they are applied as exceptions to individual make/model cases. Those shenanigans are to be avoided. Change is not inherently evil.

THAT'S the key, important difference in our understandings, I think...

K