Wheel width, ITB, again

[Knestis]

...On edit: Kirk, you still have those old rule sets? I seem to recall the width rule was put in there later. Wasn't the original rule (circa 1986/7-ish) to use stock-size wheels...?

Completely academic but yeah, here's the IT equivalent of the draft Constitution of the United States:

http://it2.evaluand.com/gti/downloads/ThisisIT.pdf

Current wheel widths for A, B, and C are all codified right there. Now, what each of us thinks that means will vary a LOT in my experience.

K

 

[Bill Miller]

Hi guys, did you miss me???

Gotta admit Kirk, I had a nice chuckle at the "clip and save for future reference".

I actually read the entire thread (why, I have no idea). There are some good points made on both sides. I'd love to comment on several of the things in here, but honestly, reading the 6+ pages wore me out. A couple of things that I did notice:

The majority of people arguing against any kind of larger wheel allowance are doing it from their own position (which is natural). Specifically to Stephen B, I don't remember you taking this position when the 'let everyone run up to 15" wheels' proposal was going around. If I'm wrong about that, I'll apologize now.

Telling the guys that got moved from ITA to ITB that they should be happy that they can now be competitive and shouldn't complain about having to buy new wheels is still just as disingenuous today, as it was when this thing went through. If you were happy about the move, and didn't mind buying new wheels, more power to you. But it shouldn't have been jammed down everyone's throat.

People are against spec-line allowances and 'special rules' for specific cars, yet they still happen (I don't believe there is any sunset on the E36 in ITS). Either things are going to be dealt w/ on a consistent basis, or they're not.

People hate the idea of adustments being made based on on-track performance, but it's expressley stated that this is allowed for newly classified cars w/ in years 2-4 of their initial classification.

Not allowing a car to run on the size wheels that it came with is just plain silly. How many New Beetles have been built? As an aside to this, I'll give the ITAC a heads-up that they should be expecting a letter regarding this.

While I agree that Darin did a lot of the legwork in developing the classification process, the push to have one came from a lot of the people on this board (myself included).

And finally, reading this thread was like stepping into a time warp. Could have sworn I read pretty much the same thing ~3 or so years ago. And I see that some people still haven't changed.

 

[Greg Amy]

Hi, Bill!! Yes, we've missed you.

 

[chuck baader]

Ok, folks...here is a good one for you. Wheels for an 84 Celica GTS. Tire rack has no, none, not one in 14 or 15" size. Stock wheel size is 14 X 7 so those can't be run. So, Diamond, Keizer, Weld..none of them have a 14 or 15 X 6 available. Other suggestions??? Chuck

 

[Knestis]

Ok, folks...here is a good one for you. Wheels for an 84 Celica GTS. Tire rack has no, none, not one in 14 or 15" size. Stock wheel size is 14 X 7 so those can't be run. So, Diamond, Keizer, Weld..none of them have a 14 or 15 X 6 available. Other suggestions??? Chuck

It's going to sound a little harsh, Chuck but I really don't think that anyone REALLY wants what will happen if we start writing categorical rules to accommodate the needs and issues of individual cars.

I had a book when I was a little kid called, "What would happen if everybody did?" The point of the story was that we can each do something a little bit wrong but if EVERYONE did it, there would be trouble. The same applies here: What if EVERYONE got an allowance around their biggest issue? Or worse, what if we changed the rules for everyone, to help every individual driver deal with some "major issue" with his/her car? It would be a mess.

...reading the 6+ pages wore me out.

Damn, Bill - you need to get back in shape, man!



K

 

[chuck baader]

So what you are saying is that I can't run a car that is classified because of the nonavailability of wheels? I can understand the non competitive guarantee, however, I can't understand the nonavailability of wheels. The request for suggestions was aimed at what manufacturers can possibly provide wheels. Chuck

 

[JoshS]

Didn't take much searching for me to find used 14x5.5" wheels from the regular Celica GT of the same generation. Sure, not 6" but they fit and would be legal.

 

[rlward]

The whole point of this discussion was to solve a problem that does in fact exist, and for more than just one car. There are legal cars that are having difficulties getting new wheels to fit the current rules. The rule must change to address issues that were not contemplated by the rulemakers at the time the rule were written. Some rules have changes to keep up with technology. This isu is no different. The rulemakers can keep thier head in the sand or they can find a sensible solution that will take an evolving market into account.
SO.....
To those who suggest junk yard wheels as a viable solution, cut the crap! There is no guarentee they are any good. And I would not want to be around th car when they failed. How about you?

To those who say have custom wheels made at whatever the cost, cut the crap! Your suggestion will only reduce the number of racers in IT. Maybe your buget is unlimited, IT was founded on low cost racing.

To those who say tough luck, build another car, cut the crap! what you are really saying is go race with another club. Not good for SCCA or IT.

 

[ekim952522000]

There may be a time when it is too hard to find 6" wide wheels and it may be hard for some right now, but I honestly don't think that as a category ITB is even close to this being a big enough problem. It be easier for some cars to find 8lb 6" wide wheels but there are cheap legal options for all of the cars I would say.

 

[gran racing]

I used 5.5" rims from '87 just fine when in ITA.

Roger, you so contradict yourself in this thread. You say "do what's best for the class" yet are one of a very few that are complaining about having to source new rims.

Would you rather the Shelby continue to be in ITA?

 

[Knestis]

So what you are saying is that I can't run a car that is classified because of the nonavailability of wheels? ... Chuck

What I'm saying is that some cars are always going to be harder - read, "more expensive" - to race in IT than others. With wheels, we're talking about some degree of that. and the rules can't do a thing to change that reality.

I'm sure Dick would love it if someone could find him a source for RX3 rear brake parts. Or if Tom S. (et al.) discovered that I have been hording new rotor housings in my basement for 20 years.

Now, Rodger's case IS different because the car was moved to B. Some ideas to soften the blow have been discussed but it didn't sound like they were very well received.

K

 

[rlward]

DAve,
You evidently did not read the whole thread.
No contradiction; to make a change that addresses my problem, keeping in mind the same problem with other cars that run now and future changes in the availability of 15x6 I agreed with a suggested change of the rule based on fitment. That type of change for all classes in IT is a possible solution that is not car specific.

I agree that there are very few cars affected now, but as the call for certain size wheels drop off, the makers of the wheels changeto keep pace with sizes that are in demand. They only have so much capacity so sizes are dropped. My size and bolt pattern is one of those.

K, my issue with your suggestions is that it is temporary. As a temporary solution, any would seem to work, but what happens in 2 years? I do want to continue to race, and in the car I have now. I don't believe I'll be able to find 6" wheels then; so I am in the same spot as now. No solid solution. Now maybe there will be more cars affected in 2 years and the chances of getting a real solution might be better. SO if 2 years is the best for IT now then let's get it done and I'l bring it up again. I just don't think temporary solutions are best.

 

[lateapex911]

Rodger, you've been 'offered' several valid solutions. Dual classing for a couple years, for one, and others have found wheel options for you. Yet you reject them, and keep blowing the "It's best for the class" horn.

I'm with them. Your problem is shared by some, but you are still in a vast minority. And you have options. You reject the used wheel solution as unsafe. Uh, whatever..have you ever heard or seen a wheel fail in IT? I haven't, and I've been around for a few years. Heck, inspect them, have them magnafluxed if you're that worried. I assume you're already doing that with the hubs and spindles and other components on your car...otherwise it's a bit hypocritical....if you're that concerned that you'll have an unsafe wheel because of it's age, well, you're cars getting on too, eh?

Too much money? Well, that's the way the dice roll sometimes. You just can't reasonably expect to race on nickles and dimes....AND be competitive. Choose one.

And I take exception that any answer that doesn't please you is telling you to race elsewhere. Seriously, you have an issue, and you want the entire category's rule changed to make your life easier and cheaper? And EVERYone to have to buy all new wheels? C'mon...you gotta be kidding.

 

[jjjanos]

What I'm saying is that some cars are always going to be harder - read, "more expensive" - to race in IT than others. With wheels, we're talking about some degree of that. and the rules can't do a thing to change that reality.

Ahhh, but with wheels, the rules can do exactly that w/o resorting to the evil spec-line exception! How? Simply eliminate the constraint and use...

"Tire tread (that portion of the tire that contacts the ground under static conditions) shall not protrude beyond the fender opening when viewed from the top perpendicular to the ground."

Shoot, you don't even need to add a thing to the GCR. You could make it shorter.

 

[Gary L]

Ahhh, but with wheels, the rules can do exactly that w/o resorting to the evil spec-line exception! How? Simply eliminate the constraint and use...

"Tire tread (that portion of the tire that contacts the ground under static conditions) shall not protrude beyond the fender opening when viewed from the top perpendicular to the ground."

Shoot, you don't even need to add a thing to the GCR. You could make it shorter.

I'm afraid of this approach. In fact, I'm very afraid of this approach. Where do we find the dimensional drawings we'd need in order to police this? I'm imagining some very clever bodywork goings-on....

Leave the damned rule alone.

 

[Greg Amy]

Where do we find the dimensional drawings we'd need in order to police this?

Uuuuuh, we'd enforce it the same way we do now? (What, you didn't know this rule was already in there...? ) - GA

 

[Gary L]

Greg- It's not about whether or not a rule exists, it's about the incentive to stretch (pun intended) a particular rule. With this proposal... to allow any wheel and tire under the fender that will fit... there is infinitely more incentive.

 

[Knestis]

Ahhh, but with wheels, the rules can do exactly that w/o resorting to the evil spec-line exception! How? Simply eliminate the constraint and use...

"Tire tread (that portion of the tire that contacts the ground under static conditions) shall not protrude beyond the fender opening when viewed from the top perpendicular to the ground."

Shoot, you don't even need to add a thing to the GCR. You could make it shorter.

That quite literally doesn't make any sense. Beyond the self-evident fact that if a rule gets deleted, the ITCS gets shorter.

K

 

[Greg Amy]

With this proposal... to allow any wheel and tire under the fender that will fit... there is infinitely more incentive.

There is incentive now -- with the lack of restriction on track, lack of restriction on wheel offset, and the allowance of wheel spacers.

You guys aren't taking advantage of this now (I do)??? Well, then you ain't gonna take advantage of it with an "open" wheel rule... - GA

 

[lateapex911]

Ahhh, but with wheels, the rules can do exactly that w/o resorting to the evil spec-line exception! How? Simply eliminate the constraint and use...

"Tire tread (that portion of the tire that contacts the ground under static conditions) shall not protrude beyond the fender opening when viewed from the top perpendicular to the ground."

Shoot, you don't even need to add a thing to the GCR. You could make it shorter.

Doesn't the fact that some cars can get a 9" rim in there while others are stuck with 6" bother anyone? That is a rather random post classification comp adjustment if you ask me...
And, do we really think it's a good idea for everyone to need to examine, test and possibly rid themselves of their current wheel inventory? For what? A couple guys don't like their choices?