G-LOC Brakes
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 24 Sep 2014 08:29 PM by  TrqlessWonder
Downsize rim width in stock class, legal?
 18 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
cjwsrt
New Member
New Member
Posts:41


--
15 Jul 2014 08:54 PM

    I'm looking at the scca rules and cant find anywhere that says you can/cant downsize the rim width in stock class. I see the rim diameter  new rule they put in this year but say for instance a car comes with 8" fronts and 9" rears, if someone wanted to run 8" squared could they?

    Adam303
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:530


    --
    15 Jul 2014 11:50 PM

    You cannot run a narrower than oem wheel in stock/street (or wider for that matter, it has to be OEM width per rulebook). Typically, if there is not a provision or allowance in the rules specifically stating you can do something, you can't do it.

    Here is the rule on width:

     

    Any type wheel may be used provided it complies with the following:

    A. "It is the same width as standard and as installed it does not have an 
    offset more than ±¼” (±6.35mm) from a standard wheel for the car. 
    The resultant change in track dimensions is allowed."


     

    marka
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2258


    --
    16 Jul 2014 09:10 AM
    Howdy,

    No, its not legal. I think someone would have to be a real dweeb to protest you for it though.

    Mark
    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    16 Jul 2014 10:47 AM
    This looks like something that could be added to the rules without much of an issue for anyone. Something in line to allow competitors to use narrower wheels on one end to match the other end, so the tire bills are lower and they can be swapped around. Who ever does this will be decreasing performance, but if the budget is priority (and it is for a lot of people that just starting to do this) I would not mind to see this added.
    cashmo
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:966


    --
    16 Jul 2014 01:45 PM
    This looks like something that could be added to the rules without much of an issue for anyone.

    You're clearly not familiar with the variety/content of the emails we receive. 

    Having said that, http://www.sebscca.com is where the process starts.  I'd suggest trying to sell the idea in your email, not just the common, "you should do this".

    Jeff

     


    marka
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:2258


    --
    16 Jul 2014 02:46 PM
    Howdy,

    The rule update required would be pretty small. I.e. change 13.4.A to


    It is no more than the same width as standard and as installed it does not have an offset more than ±¼” (±6.35mm) from a standard wheel for the car. The resultant change in track dimensions is allowed.


    As for the "why" part of it, it could be something like "To allow better access to alternate wheels for vehicles with odd sizes from the factory, without the increased allowance being a "must have" for serious competitors."

    As Jeff implies however, this is all just talking on a forum. I'm less convinced that this is a change anyone is particularly wanting.  Write the letters and prove me wrong.


    Mark
    sjfehr
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:634


    --
    16 Jul 2014 04:55 PM

    One thing it would allow is selective up-sizing of wheels to take advantage of the +/-1" rule. For instance, I'm perfectly content running OEM 9x18" rear wheels, but would love to upgrade my front 8x18" to 8.5x18" to better accommodate 255/35-18 rubber. Under the present rules, I would have to upgrade rear as well to get the wider front wheels, doubling my costs. If the rules were changed to allow smaller-than-OEM, I would only have to upgrade the front.


    Unintended consequences and all, is there any performance advantage to smaller-than-OEM wheels? The smaller wheels are likely to be lighter, but only by a very small degree.  Is there an opening for potential abuse?

    MrAWD
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:880


    --
    16 Jul 2014 05:48 PM
    Posted By cashmo on 16 Jul 2014 01:45 PM
    This looks like something that could be added to the rules without much of an issue for anyone.

    You're clearly not familiar with the variety/content of the emails we receive. 

    Having said that, http://www.sebscca.com is where the process starts.  I'd suggest trying to sell the idea in your email, not just the common, "you should do this".

    Jeff

     


    I don't really have a dog in this fight, so mine was just an observation for the given situation. I do think it would help lots of the new guys not the be bothered with the potential protests. Once they figure out what is going on out there and learn to drive, they would run the best possible combo anyway, which is legal today.


    93Rubie
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:11


    --
    16 Jul 2014 08:27 PM
    Here is the thing if they start making new rules just to please a certain driver of a certain type of car then they have to do it for everyone. What is stopping you from running 255's on the 9" wide wheels? Run the same size tire on all the wheels. I'm putting 255's on a 17X9.5 right now with no issues. When I get the money saved for a set of 18X9.5's I'll buy those.

    I agree if Marka. If you want to run smaller wheels I won't protest that at all. I personally want as wide and big a tire as I can get (that works) under the car.

    Dumb question are you running local region or nationals? If your running nationals, I hope its just for fun. The serious guys find a way to afford the best of what is needed to be fast in whatever class they happen to be in. If your just at a region level, you can practically get away with murder (rules wise) unless your stupid faster than everyone else in a class on a given day.

    I understand the budget thing, however, that probably means your not running national events. I don't because of this reason. Would if I had the available cash and time. Run what you want at the region level, I doubt anybody will protest it.
    cjwsrt
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:41


    --
    17 Jul 2014 02:50 PM

    Thanks for the quick replies, the main reason i want to do this is so i can rotate tires and get a little more life, instead of paying $40 to have them rotate tires off the front to rears and such.. anyway the car has 9" front and 10" rear, a 295 35 tire will fit all the way around so i figured just buy four 9" rims and rotate when needed, i will write in and see if anything can come about. nobody would gain performance out of this other then loosing a little weight on the rear wheels but very minimal gain there

    I am only running 2 local events now, just a hobby but possibly going to run a dixie event next year for fun, but i will not do anything that is considerd cheating to anyone, i know there wouldnt be any gain to this but everyone here knows if you beat someone and they find something even slighty different on your car youll be protested

    cdlong
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:74


    --
    23 Jul 2014 04:00 PM
    Posted By sjfehr on 16 Jul 2014 04:55 PM

    One thing it would allow is selective up-sizing of wheels to take advantage of the +/-1" rule. For instance, I'm perfectly content running OEM 9x18" rear wheels, but would love to upgrade my front 8x18" to 8.5x18" to better accommodate 255/35-18 rubber. Under the present rules, I would have to upgrade rear as well to get the wider front wheels, doubling my costs. If the rules were changed to allow smaller-than-OEM, I would only have to upgrade the front.


    Unintended consequences and all, is there any performance advantage to smaller-than-OEM wheels? The smaller wheels are likely to be lighter, but only by a very small degree.  Is there an opening for potential abuse?


    The +/-1" rule can be applied individually.  There's no requirement to keep a "package" together.  You're free to upsize your fronts, downsize the rears, upsize the right side of the car, downsize the left rear, whatever you want.  

    sjfehr
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:634


    --
    23 Jul 2014 04:47 PM
    Posted By cdlong on 23 Jul 2014 04:00 PM
    Posted By sjfehr on 16 Jul 2014 04:55 PM

    One thing it would allow is selective up-sizing of wheels to take advantage of the +/-1" rule. For instance, I'm perfectly content running OEM 9x18" rear wheels, but would love to upgrade my front 8x18" to 8.5x18" to better accommodate 255/35-18 rubber. Under the present rules, I would have to upgrade rear as well to get the wider front wheels, doubling my costs. If the rules were changed to allow smaller-than-OEM, I would only have to upgrade the front.


    Unintended consequences and all, is there any performance advantage to smaller-than-OEM wheels? The smaller wheels are likely to be lighter, but only by a very small degree.  Is there an opening for potential abuse?


    The +/-1" rule can be applied individually.  There's no requirement to keep a "package" together.  You're free to upsize your fronts, downsize the rears, upsize the right side of the car, downsize the left rear, whatever you want.  

    Under the present rules, the widths still need to match the OEM option package, though.  This car came with 8x18F/9x18R, with optional 8.5x19F/10x19R.  If I ran 8.5x18" front wheels, no 9" wide rear wheel would be legal, it would need to be some permutation of 10x18, 10x19 or 10x20" to match OEM widths +/-1" in radius.  Offsets would have to be within rule tolerance, too.


    cdlong
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:74


    --
    23 Jul 2014 05:00 PM

    Ahh, nevermind.  I didn't follow what you were trying to do. 

    Dick Rasmussen
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:931


    --
    24 Jul 2014 09:00 PM
    See January Fastrack for the official clarification of the +/_1 rule. Doesn't help with the original rim downsizing question but does make it clear that all +/-1 inch changes need to be within the same option package. Note also that the offsets must also be based on the option package chosen.
    OZMDD
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:131


    --
    09 Sep 2014 01:00 PM
    I don't see any good reason to allow narrower wheels. It can provide a performance advantage if it allows better fit of an available tire size than stock. If someone needs to do this locally for financial reasons, then clear it with your competitors. Otherwise, run in a class that suits the actual car/wheels you have.

    Also, I'm dismayed at the number of people who berate "weenie" protests. The protest system doesn't work if people are afraid of a stigma for protesting something that is illegal. When nobody wants to be the one to file the protest due to peer pressure, the system has failed.
    The Nebulizer
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1819


    --
    09 Sep 2014 04:50 PM
    Posted By OZMDD on 09 Sep 2014 01:00 PM
    I don't see any good reason to allow narrower wheels. It can provide a performance advantage if it allows better fit of an available tire size than stock. If someone needs to do this locally for financial reasons, then clear it with your competitors. Otherwise, run in a class that suits the actual car/wheels you have.

    Also, I'm dismayed at the number of people who berate "weenie" protests. The protest system doesn't work if people are afraid of a stigma for protesting something that is illegal. When nobody wants to be the one to file the protest due to peer pressure, the system has failed.
    No, a Weenie protest is one that is made based on something that might be technically illegal but likely provides no real advantage. I had aftermarket paddle shifters on my M3. They couldn't possibly provide a performance benefit (I don't even use them), but they are technically illegal. (They will likely even be legal next year.) Someone could have protested me (if my FSB hadn't broken), but that would be a weenie protest for sure and not a good use of the protest system.

    OZMDD
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:131


    --
    23 Sep 2014 02:31 PM
    I think paddle shifters can easily fall under C&C, like a shift knob. Agree that it would be a pointless protest, but I have definitely seen people opt against a protest because they fear public backlash. A 350Z recently won its local STU class at an event here in Texas, and it had one of the nismo-style air ducts in the front bumper, which is clearly not legal - and arguably a real advantage in 90+ deg temps, and the competitor who brought it to my attention was unwilling to file an actual protest since he thought he would look like a sore loser. I had to tell him that as a safety steward, I don't enforce classing rules and he should file the protest, but he opted not to. That is the system failing.
    ratt_finkel
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1650


    --
    23 Sep 2014 06:19 PM
    Posted By OZMDD on 23 Sep 2014 02:31 PM
    I think paddle shifters can easily fall under C&C, like a shift knob. Agree that it would be a pointless protest, but I have definitely seen people opt against a protest because they fear public backlash. A 350Z recently won its local STU class at an event here in Texas, and it had one of the nismo-style air ducts in the front bumper, which is clearly not legal - and arguably a real advantage in 90+ deg temps, and the competitor who brought it to my attention was unwilling to file an actual protest since he thought he would look like a sore loser. I had to tell him that as a safety steward, I don't enforce classing rules and he should file the protest, but he opted not to. That is the system failing.
    I don't want to derail this thread.  But classes are policed by the competitor, not SCCA.  Otherwise we would have an SCCA police. 

    TrqlessWonder
    New Member
    New Member
    Posts:82


    --
    24 Sep 2014 08:29 PM
    Posted By cjwsrt on 17 Jul 2014 02:50 PM

    Thanks for the quick replies, the main reason i want to do this is so i can rotate tires and get a little more life, instead of paying $40 to have them rotate tires off the front to rears and such.. anyway the car has 9" front and 10" rear, a 295 35 tire will fit all the way around so i figured just buy four 9" rims and rotate when needed, i will write in and see if anything can come about. nobody would gain performance out of this other then loosing a little weight on the rear wheels but very minimal gain there

    I am only running 2 local events now, just a hobby but possibly going to run a dixie event next year for fun, but i will not do anything that is considerd cheating to anyone, i know there wouldnt be any gain to this but everyone here knows if you beat someone and they find something even slighty different on your car youll be protested


    Something of a different argument (and way late) but do yourself a favor first and do some cost simulations on your proposed scenario versus what is already legal.  Not entirely sure how it'll turn out for you, but it wouldn't be the first time someone's spent $100 in an effort to save $50.  Run that scenario out for a season or two, including not just the tire swaps, but also the cost of the new wheels.

     

     

    You are not authorized to post a reply.


    SPS 88x31 Button Woodhouse Motorsports
    Vorshlag 88x31 Button G-Loc Button
    Sunoco 88x31 Button

    Advertise on SCCAForums.com and reach thousands of visitors per day!

    SafeRacer FREE SHIPPING over $99

    Shop for Pirelli tires at Tire Rack. blank




    Sunoco Bottom 468x60 Banner