wheel weight determination and policing

[MHISSTC]

I don't have to ask now. If the spacer is not part of the wheel (welded) it does not count towards the weight of the wheel. It is either part of the wheel or it isn't. It counts towards the weight or it doesn't. The wheel is legal or it isn't. All decided by the number on the scale.

 

True, but it's a pain in the rear for everyone in the series going forward with the precedent that has been set at Nationals this year if they are shopping for new wheels as the rule is written now.

 

The selection of affordable 17x9.5 wheels that fit the Mustangs are extremely limited, but slowly increasing in numbers. I know what offset and spacer sizes I need in the front and the back on The Pumpkin with 275 wide RA1s mounted on 17x9.5 wheels because I took the time to measure it. With that information I can pick up another set of cheap wheels that weigh 22.1 lbs each for under $500 for a set of 4. Or, I could go out and spend $2500+ for a set of custom made wheels and spacers to accomplish the same thing while doing it right at the 18lb mark.

 

Does it make sense to spend an additional $2000+ to remove 4 lbs (5-6 if you account for the non-attached spacers that could then be incorporated into the wheel) of rotating mass at each corner? Different racers would answer that differently. But, it might start to sound reasonable if I only had to spend an additional $500 for a set of 4 Enkei RPF1 wheels ($960 for a set of 4 plus tax and shipping is the best I could find in 5 minutes on the Internet) and tack on some spacers to bring the weight up to 18lbs.

 

I'd still much rather avoid the hassle and shop for wheels based on their actual manufactured weight and not their calculated weight once I tack a spacer on there. But then again, is that difference in attitude and willingness to spend more $$$ what differentiates those who will be on the podium from those who will not? Hopefully it we can keep it a non-money issue.

[MHISSTC]

And by the way, thank you Glenn for the willingness to discuss and debate this topic.

[Glenn]

So it wasn't a SWAG in the sence of picking numbers at random.

 

The "S" stands for "Scientific", which indicates I know there was some basis for the numbers and it wasn't a completely random "WAG". But it still wasn't based on a set of hard numbers, only target ranges from OEM wheels that weren't the maximum size allowed.

 

I always used "stupid" for the S.

To each his own.....

[Glenn]

kind of reminds me of when we thought of using a Group 4B battery to add weight to the car... ...totally legal as the rules are written, but when we actually took the time to ask about it in advance of doing it, we were very clearly told it was not in the spirit of CMC, a generally bad idea, and the result of us doing so would be the rules rewritten to clearly disallow it in the future.

 

I don't recall it happening that way. As far back as I can recall (2004 rules) the OEM group size battery has always been required. I don't think a Fox ever had a group size battery that was 145lbs.

 

7.9.7 The battery may be relocated. The battery must be of the same type, group size (i.e. 24F), and voltage as originally equipped, or heavier, and may not be modified.

 

Notice the "or heavier" wording? I believe the way the rule is written, the use of a battery smaller than the OEM group size is specifically excluded which prevents racers from using high dollar super small dry cell batteries that wouldn't be in the spirit of CMC. But no one ever considered that someone would actually choose to use a battery that was 3x the weight of the OEM battery and the rule still hasn't been specifically written to exclude it. Is anyone keeping track of what all the OEM battery sizes are in order to know if someone is using a smaller and lighter battery than the OEM? All the cars in the series didn't come with a Group 24F battery. I think this is one of those eyeball tech items. If you have a big-ass battery, or a wee little tiny one, someone is going to call you out on it. But if you have a battery that looks "reasonable", then no one is actually going to check to see if your specific car came with that specific group size as OEM. I believe this is one of those gray areas that Kent was talking about that is both super simple, yet impossible to properly tech without being specifically quantified. I could probably get away with running a group 27 or 42 and no one would think twice, even though neither is the OEM group for my car and one is lighter while the other is heavier.

 

My bad, you are correct.

The change if I recall now was to disallow things per the Directors opinion that appeard to be used for purposes of illegal ballast placement. In practice one could do a considerable amount of weight reduction (time, effort, $$) and be way under weight and then make up for it by placing a battery (that is 145lbs) behind the main hoop and thus creating an advantage. If it was placed in front of the mainhoop, it would still give a better CG.

 

Consider that once you allow something, it is 10x's harder to pull it back.

[Glenn]

True, but it's a pain in the rear for everyone in the series going forward with the precedent that has been set at Nationals this year if they are shopping for new wheels as the rule is written now.

 

 

This isn't a new precedent. This has always been the case. I can see how one can have an "oh really" moment, but I don't see the issue.

Arron likes to walk on the edge. If you do as well, fine. Some don't and that is OK too. But I don't think it is right to "soften" the rules to the lowest common denominator w/ regards to effort folks are willing to put into the series. $$$, yes. Effort, no.

 

The selection of affordable 17x9.5 wheels that fit the Mustangs are extremely limited.....

Pretty much non-existant for the GM's. That is why so many of us run 9" wide wheels. Anything cheap in 9.5" is street car junk.

 

 

With that information I can pick up another set of cheap wheels that weigh 22.1 lbs each for under $500 for a set of 4. Or, I could go out and spend $2500+ for a set of custom made wheels and spacers to accomplish the same thing while doing it right at the 18lb mark.

 

I can as well. Anyone can. I don't cause I don't think it is worth the cost. It is the same reason I'm still on OEM brakes. I run pretty damn well on 9" wheels and 12" brakes w/ 2 piston calipers. Am I leaving something on the table by not "upgrading"? Sure. But I'm OK w/ it. Obviously your not. I would like to get rid of big brakes. I can't all on my own though. In fact, I want 16" wheels back as well.

 

Obviously you don't like the line drawn in the sand for wheels. I don't like it for brakes and wheels. I have issue w/ the spoiler rule as well. I still think this is the bast place to race. I don't think my opinion is the right one or the only one, but just 1 (opinion). And that is what is great, a collective agreement of rules that we will race by. Its not perfect for everyone, but its pretty dang good for all of us.

 

 

I'd still much rather avoid the hassle and shop for wheels based on their actual manufactured weight and not their calculated weight once I tack a spacer on there. But then again, is that difference in attitude and willingness to spend more $$$ what differentiates those who will be on the podium from those who will not? Hopefully it we can keep it a non-money issue.

 

Again, I (we) can't write rules based on what someone thinks is a hassle.

Some guys run different alignment set-ups for different tracks and even set thier cars up non-symetrical. I think that is too much hassle. Should I write a rule to prevent that so I don't have to do it? Surely you don't think so do you?

 

And by the way, thank you Glenn for the willingness to discuss and debate this topic.

 

It is nice doing it w/ someone not willing to get upset cause we disagree or decides to make it personal.

I haven't posted this much in a very long time.

[nape1548534725]

But I don't think it is right to "soften" the rules to the lowest common denominator w/ regards to effort folks are willing to put into the series. $$$, yes. Effort, no.

 

Then how come my close ratio trans got written out this year after I brought it up last year and told it was legal per the rules? It'd be cheaper to do then buying a $1000 set of wheels...

 

I'm being facetious even though I spent the money and it was written out.

 

I will wonder though, why does it have to be welded? I've got some 16lb magnesium Corvette wheels and I'd love to epoxy some spacers on them. It's a little hard to weld magnesium.

[Glenn]

I will wonder though, why does it have to be welded? I've got some 16lb magnesium Corvette wheels and I'd love to epoxy some spacers on them. It's a little hard to weld magnesium.

 

Not gonna touch the trans part of that.

 

We can certainly make an exception and make a entry into your logbook. Your points are valid and I don't see a reasonable alternative. If your serious, get an email into your Regional Director and request it be brought before the group of Series Directors.

[nape1548534725]

Thanks Glenn, I'll try to talk to him about it this weekend.

[MHISSTC]

...I don't think it is worth the cost. It is the same reason I'm still on OEM brakes. I run pretty damn well on 9" wheels and 12" brakes w/ 2 piston calipers. Am I leaving something on the table by not "upgrading"? Sure. But I'm OK w/ it. Obviously your not. I would like to get rid of big brakes. I can't all on my own though. In fact, I want 16" wheels back as well.

 

Obviously you don't like the line drawn in the sand for wheels. I don't like it for brakes and wheels. I have issue w/ the spoiler rule as well. I still think this is the bast place to race. I don't think my opinion is the right one or the only one, but just 1 (opinion). And that is what is great, a collective agreement of rules that we will race by. Its not perfect for everyone, but its pretty dang good for all of us.

 

I REALLY don't like the interpretation and allowances being given to modify wheels in any way, specifically in this case the allowance given to "permanently" attach spacers to the wheels. I only semi-disagree with the inclusion of the spacer as part of the wheel weight since I feel a loose spacer should also be able to be included in that weight. That's it. And since none of that is specifically allowed in the CMC rules as they are currently written, we will be submitting a RCR this off-season regarding this topic.

 

7.31 Wheels/Tires

7.31.1 Wheels may be of any construction or material and must be 16 or 17 inch diameter.

7.31.2 16 inch wheels must weigh 16lbs or more. 17 inch wheels must weigh 18lbs or more. Wheels may not be wider than 9.5 inches.

7.31.3 Maximum tire size is 275/40R17 for all cars. The only tire allowed is the Toyo Proxes RA1.

7.31.4 Wheel spacers are allowed and wheels may have any offset.

 

Different topics for consideration in other threads:

While I don't care for a number of the changes made in an effort to incorporate the S197 platform in CMC and to make the older platforms more competitive with it, including the 4-piston calipers, aftermarket brake kits, 275 wide tires, 9.5" wide wheels, or increases in track width that require body modification, I'm OK with the 13" rotors and 17" wheels, have mixed feelings about the current spoiler rule (although it's much better than it was), and I understand the benefit of cheaper pad replacement for the tradeoff of a higher initial cost for the brake kit. For the folks willing to do it, especially in conjunction with separate aluminum hat rotors, they also get a lighter weight package that will, at least on paper, provide a benefit.

 

But just like the issue of purchasing a wheel that by itself weighs less than 18lbs or a set of custom wheels, as you stated, the rules aren't written for the lowest common denominator, and allow the racer to determine their own personal cost/benefit ratio within a range of possibilities.

 

We may also finally submit an RCR that pertains to a specific weight range of "reasonable" sized batteries that includes a variety of group sizes, but don't specifically name a particular group since there were a variety of batteries sizes used in OEM GM and Ford Products from '79-'11.

[D Algozine]

If the spacer is PERMANENTLY attached to the wheel, then it is no longer a spacer. A spacer can be removed to adjust track width but once permanently attached, it can not be removed. This wheel has become a custom product.

 

Like I said earlier, this is no different than if Enkei did it from the beginning.

 

I truly don't understand how spending significant dollars on light weight wheels and then welding another piece (spacer) to find a way around a rule has a place in CMC. I've only heard the complete opposite, and have been told this many times.

 

I'm paraphrasing, but here are a few statements made by directors and senior members in recent history:

"This isn't a builders class. "

"Don't try to find holes in the rules"

"Keep cost down"

 

Then there is the mantra about the requirements that an RCR must have in order to be considered

---4) Reasoning for change MUST include at least 1 of the following:

---------->a) Willl decrease series cost because…

---------->b) Will increase driver safety because…

---------->c) Will promote series growth because...

---------->d) Will improve competition because…

---------->e) Will provide more clarity because...

 

Which one of the above does expensive light weight wheels with spacer welded, apply?

 

To my understanding expensive and/or custom wheels is the complete opposite of what CMC is supposed to be about. How about allowing racers to spend a couple more dollars on making the cars easier to service, adjust and be more reliable ???

[MHISSTC]

[Glenn]

If the spacer is PERMANENTLY attached to the wheel, then it is no longer a spacer. A spacer can be removed to adjust track width but once permanently attached, it can not be removed. This wheel has become a custom product.

 

Like I said earlier, this is no different than if Enkei did it from the beginning.

 

I truly don't understand how spending significant dollars on light weight wheels and then welding another piece (spacer) to find a way around a rule has a place in CMC. I've only heard the complete opposite, and have been told this many times.

 

I'm paraphrasing, but here are a few statements made by directors and senior members in recent history:

"This isn't a builders class. "

"Don't try to find holes in the rules"

"Keep cost down"

 

Then there is the mantra about the requirements that an RCR must have in order to be considered

---4) Reasoning for change MUST include at least 1 of the following:

---------->a) Willl decrease series cost because…

---------->b) Will increase driver safety because…

---------->c) Will promote series growth because...

---------->d) Will improve competition because…

---------->e) Will provide more clarity because...

 

Which one of the above does expensive light weight wheels with spacer welded, apply?

 

To my understanding expensive and/or custom wheels is the complete opposite of what CMC is supposed to be about. How about allowing racers to spend a couple more dollars on making the cars easier to service, adjust and be more reliable ???

 

I don't give a rats ass what someone spends on wheels or parts as long as the spending of money does not create a performance advantage. If the wheels are the corrct weight as raced, then why does it matter what they cost?

 

You perspective would imply that you have issue with folks who spend big money on turn key CMC cars. I have seen $35k to $40k CMC cars. Does that mean the car will a lass killer as a result of the pri e tag? Surely you don't think so.

[soundguydave1548534741]

 

I don't give a rats ass what someone spends on wheels or parts as long as the spending of money does not create a performance advantage. If the wheels are the corrct weight as raced, then why does it matter what they cost?

 

You perspective would imply that you have issue with folks who spend big money on turn key CMC cars. I have seen $35k to $40k CMC cars. Does that mean the car will a lass killer as a result of the pri e tag? Surely you don't think so.

 

And a 17" wheel is a 17" wheel, right? Okay, compare ANY wheel typically used on a CMC car to a three-piece custom, with a carbon-fiber hoop, aluminum center section, and billet steel hub that incorporates the "required" spacer, and comes in at 18lbs on the nose. Compared to the "typical" wheel, the composite piece will have drastically lower rotational inertia, as nearly all the weight is concentrated in the hub area. A wheel like that will most likely run $4000, each. The reduced rotational inertia WILL provide a measurable performance advantage compared to a typical cast street wheel, and is available via MasterCard. This theoretical composite wheel meets ALL of the criteria set down in rule 7.31, and are therefore completely legal. The closer cars come to hitting the limit of the rulebook, the more stuff like this is going to start popping up as people look for advantages. Look at what has become of SM...

 

We really only have five chassis types: 3rd Gen, 4th Gen, Fox, SN95, and S197. Why not just specify an UNMODIFIED 16" and 17" wheel for each type, and be done with it? OE, aftermarket, who cares, if all the wheels have the same basic weight and rotational inertia?

 

As for $40,000 CMC cars, if that particular car is prepped to the absolute elastic limit of the rulebook, then yes, it will have an advantage over a "typical" build.

[Glenn]

with a carbon-fiber hoop, aluminum center section, and billet steel hub that incorporates the "required" spacer

 

Got me there. Perhaps we need to add that the wheels must be made of metal.

 

If someone is going to drop $16K on a set of wheels, do you think CMC is where they will race? I don't, but if it helps you sleep at night, I'll see about adding "metal construction" to the rules.

 

Backin the old days the rules required 1 piece wheels and the phrase "no exotic construction" was used to prevent anything else. Later the "1 piece" requirement was removed becuase the goal was weight limits. Making wheels in multiple pieces didn't in of itself make them light. Obviously carbon wheels were not a common thing like they are now.

 

The reduced rotational inertia WILL provide a measurable performance advantage compared to a typical cast street wheel,

 

I bet there are bigger gains in lap times in other simpler areas, even for the Arron's of CMC. While it is measurable, somewhere, it isn't measurable using a legal CMC car. There is just too many areas where the limits in place will not allow those gains to be realized. By those standards of amounts of potential gains, why not limit the number of layers of paint on the chassis behind the main hoop? Why can't I put 5 gallons of paint on the rear half? That sure would "technically" create a "measurable" gain in front/rear %'s. It would be legal ballast per the rules. Why not use lead back there as well instead of modern body filler? Oh crap, now we gotta ban led body filler. See where this line of thinking gets us? If you don't, it gets usa 200 pg rulebook. One that you need a lawyer to translate. Boy that will up the fun factor.

 

The closer cars come to hitting the limit of the rulebook, the more stuff like this is going to start popping up as people look for advantages. Look at what has become of SM...

No I 100% agree w/ this statement. In fact, it is almost 100% identical to what I said back in the days before I was a Director. I pushed alot of "gray" areas before they were called gray. I was asked "why did you go there?" My responce was I did it before the other fast guys do it. Some of those loopholes are now closed.

 

Why not just specify an UNMODIFIED 16" and 17" wheel for each type, and be done with it? OE, aftermarket, who cares, if all the wheels have the same basic weight and rotational inertia?

Any idea how many different types of wheels we have racing in CMC today? Got a clue how unpopulare you will be for asking for something like this? You think it's pretty simple, so you make a list for your own platform, and be sure to exclude the wheels you have just so its fair to everyone who doesn't have those wheels.

For myself, I don't have enough of the wheels I have. If I have to start over, I'll just switch classes. A rule like that would force me to leave as I wouldn't be able to comply w/ a required change.

 

As for $40,000 CMC cars, if that particular car is prepped to the absolute elastic limit of the rulebook, then yes, it will have an advantage over a "typical" build.

I don't see how since it doesn't require $40K (or even $15K) to prep to the limits of the rules. A typical CMC build isn't lacking dollar bills being thrown at it, its lacking effort being thrown at it. Huge difference (unless your effort comes from the guy you write your checks too in order to get your car ready for each event. - And that is your problem, not mine or the rule books).

[soundguydave1548534741]

with a carbon-fiber hoop, aluminum center section, and billet steel hub that incorporates the "required" spacer

 

Got me there. Perhaps we need to add that the wheels must be made of metal.

 

If someone is going to drop $16K on a set of wheels, do you think CMC is where they will race? I don't, but if it helps you sleep at night, I'll see about adding "metal construction" to the rules.

 

Backin the old days the rules required 1 piece wheels and the phrase "no exotic construction" was used to prevent anything else. Later the "1 piece" requirement was removed becuase the goal was weight limits. Making wheels in multiple pieces didn't in of itself make them light. Obviously carbon wheels were not a common thing like they are now.

 

Honestly, all I was pointing out was that the pure diemension and weight spec that we have is absolutely exploitable. No different than taking a 17lb wheel, and adding mass to the hub area to meet spec. I'm pretty sure that's not what the rules intend, despite the wording "Wheels may be of any construction or material..." That sounds like an invitation to exotic materials, rather than a hint that they would- or should- be restricted.

 

The reduced rotational inertia WILL provide a measurable performance advantage compared to a typical cast street wheel,

 

I bet there are bigger gains in lap times in other simpler areas, even for the Arron's of CMC. While it is measurable, somewhere, it isn't measurable using a legal CMC car. There is just too many areas where the limits in place will not allow those gains to be realized. By those standards of amounts of potential gains, why not limit the number of layers of paint on the chassis behind the main hoop? Why can't I put 5 gallons of paint on the rear half? That sure would "technically" create a "measurable" gain in front/rear %'s. It would be legal ballast per the rules. Why not use lead back there as well instead of modern body filler? Oh crap, now we gotta ban led body filler. See where this line of thinking gets us? If you don't, it gets usa 200 pg rulebook. One that you need a lawyer to translate. Boy that will up the fun factor.

 

The point I was trying to make (and apparently failing miserably at) was that when you get close to the "100% car," all those other things have allready been done. For the guy that still feels the need for some sort of advantage, he'll start looking at the grey areas FWIW, the rotational inertia of a wheel like I described is roughly the same as a 14lb cast street-style wheel. And I think we can all see the advantage in acceleration and braking in a 14lb wheel against a similarly sized 18lb wheel, all other things being the same. And yes, that would be measurable, even on a legal CMC car. They don't defy physics, after all.

 

The closer cars come to hitting the limit of the rulebook, the more stuff like this is going to start popping up as people look for advantages. Look at what has become of SM...

No I 100% agree w/ this statement. In fact, it is almost 100% identical to what I said back in the days before I was a Director. I pushed alot of "gray" areas before they were called gray. I was asked "why did you go there?" My responce was I did it before the other fast guys do it. Some of those loopholes are now closed.

 

Why not just specify an UNMODIFIED 16" and 17" wheel for each type, and be done with it? OE, aftermarket, who cares, if all the wheels have the same basic weight and rotational inertia?

Any idea how many different types of wheels we have racing in CMC today? Got a clue how unpopulare you will be for asking for something like this? You think it's pretty simple, so you make a list for your own platform, and be sure to exclude the wheels you have just so its fair to everyone who doesn't have those wheels.

For myself, I don't have enough of the wheels I have. If I have to start over, I'll just switch classes. A rule like that would force me to leave as I wouldn't be able to comply w/ a required change.

 

I'm neither proposing a rule change, nor worried about winning a popularity contest. I'm only observing that if people are so worried about whether a particular wheel is legal if the tape-on balance weights are removed, why don't we spec wheels much the same way as we do body panels or camshafts? Also, if you can't afford a one-time expense for eight or ten readily available $150-200 wheels, then maybe racing isn't the right hobby to have. In no way was I suggesting that the spec wheel be anything more than a commonly available piece, like the C5 Vette wheels or aftermarket replicas.

 

As for $40,000 CMC cars, if that particular car is prepped to the absolute elastic limit of the rulebook, then yes, it will have an advantage over a "typical" build.

I don't see how since it doesn't require $40K (or even $15K) to prep to the limits of the rules. A typical CMC build isn't lacking dollar bills being thrown at it, its lacking effort being thrown at it. Huge difference (unless your effort comes from the guy you write your checks too in order to get your car ready for each event. - And that is your problem, not mine or the rule books).

 

Glenn, you need to remember that not all CMC drivers own, work at, or have access to a machine shop, can weld, and can do bodywork. Also, not all CMC drivers have the time to spend tinkering with the car like some others do. When we're talking about "containing cost," you really should look at labor as part of the equation; whether invested personally or paid for in cash, it still exists and should be accounted for. I am a reasonably good mechanic, very good with electrical work, but I can't weld, can't do bodywork, and can't shoot paint. I have to farm that work out. I also can't make a billet aluminum spring spacer for $6.00, like somebody that has access to a Bridgeport mill. So, ask yourself: Can a top-flite CMC build from scratch be done for $12,000? Yes. Can it be done in a timely fashion when restricted to basic hand tools, while simultaneously working 70 or so hours a week? Not only no, but HELL no. And yes, that IS a problem with the rules, every time a "cost containment" measure equates to "fabricate it," "modify it," "find it in a junkyard," or some other time-suck nonsense.

[Glenn]

So as much as you think I should reconsider racing due to my lack of willingness to spend money on wheels.......... I think you should rereconsider racing due to your lack of time available to work and prep your own car and willingness to learn how do the things you don't and not invest in those tools needed to do all your own work.

[rsmith350]

So as much as you think I should reconsider racing due to my lack of willingness to spend money on wheels.......... I think you should rereconsider racing due to your lack of time available to work and prep your own car and willingness to learn how do the things you don't and not invest in those tools needed to do all your own work.

 

Incompletely agree. 4years its taken me to finish my car and its still not 100%. In that time I've reconsidered whether I should be racing many times. In the end (at least in the Texas region) my determination and willingness to pick up new skills, make time I don't have, spend money on wheels and many other obstacles I've encountered over the years has never been determined by a rule book or class changes! It is without a shadow of a doubt the people of CMC and the staff of NASA TX! My desire to compete AND win has never been stronger. If you REALLY want to race, nothing will stop you. If you're mad at rules or other reasons you think you're not competitive, might want to examine why you're really upset. It may be time to visit some DE sessions, work with some instructors, humble yourself and work on the the most changeable aspect of this entire endeavor........the driver!

[soundguydave1548534741]

So as much as you think I should reconsider racing due to my lack of willingness to spend money on wheels.......... I think you should rereconsider racing due to your lack of time available to work and prep your own car and willingness to learn how do the things you don't and not invest in those tools needed to do all your own work.

 

Whether you believe me or not, I honestly wasn't trying to attack you. To me, it doesn't matter whether you (or anybody) is able to or unable to do 100% of the work on their own car. But are you seriously suggesting that to be a CMC racer, you need to own a shop/barn/out-building where you can set up a paint booth??? Oh, and I think this is the SECOND time that you've told me to "go find another sandbox." That shit is getting old. I wasn't arguing with the rules, just your blanket statement that reduced rotational inertia isn't a measurable performance advantage on a CMC car. With the "theoretical wheel rule change," you are unwilling to spend money (roughly one weekends operating costs) on wheels and as a result, would leave the series. On the other side, I AM willing to pay cash and farm out what I know I can't do myself, and I operate on a shoestring budget, trying to run two cars. Who then is the more "dedicated" racer?

[Glenn]

So as much as you think I should reconsider racing due to my lack of willingness to spend money on wheels.......... I think you should rereconsider racing due to your lack of time available to work and prep your own car and willingness to learn how do the things you don't and not invest in those tools needed to do all your own work.

 

Whether you believe me or not, I honestly wasn't trying to attack you. To me, it doesn't matter whether you (or anybody) is able to or unable to do 100% of the work on their own car. But are you seriously suggesting that to be a CMC racer, you need to own a shop/barn/out-building where you can set up a paint booth??? Oh, and I think this is the SECOND time that you've told me to "go find another sandbox." That shit is getting old. I wasn't arguing with the rules, just your blanket statement that reduced rotational inertia isn't a measurable performance advantage on a CMC car. With the "theoretical wheel rule change," you are unwilling to spend money (roughly one weekends operating costs) on wheels and as a result, would leave the series. On the other side, I AM willing to pay cash and farm out what I know I can't do myself, and I operate on a shoestring budget, trying to run two cars. Who then is the more "dedicated" racer?

 

I wasn't attacking either. I was however hoping you would understand that there are 2 side to every coin. Your ok with me buying new wheels. I'm ok with the expectaion that you work harder on your car and driving/set-up. In stead of changing the rules to make life easier on you at the expense of spending more money I would rather see folks who put effor in winning win in place of folks who spend to win. To me, guys who arrive and drive are ones who spend to win.

My ability to do my own work is the only reason I can do what I do. If I have to spend any more money that I do today, I am out. I run 1/2 seasons now as it is.

I can assure you I workout of my 2 car garage with a 110 volt welder, a small 30 gallon air compressor and a chop saw. The rest is common hand tools.

[Glenn]

Oh, and my weekends budget is $500. I also need 3 sets of wheels. That is more like a season off for me.

[soundguydave1548534741]

Honestly, it sounds like a jealousy issue here with the arrive and drive crowd. For the record, I'm NOT one of those. I own two race cars, live in a townhome, and have a 1-car garage SLOT in a 4-stall building. The building has 20amp service to the garage, total. Enough for the garage door openers and a light bulb. I also have two race cars, one stored in a trailer in a fenced lot, the other (that I own with a friend) is stored 155 miles from my house. That's my situation, and I try to make the best of it that I can. However, I CAN'T run a welder (even if I did better than burning holes in things), and I can't even run a compressor (that I own) for my decent selection of air tools. There isn't even room in the garage for my tool box.

 

On my Enduro car (stored locally), I am able to use my sponsor's shop with lifts, compressor, etc., and I'm sure that I would be able to drag the CMC car in if I wanted to, but the deal is that I only get rack space if he has a bay free, and it has to be able to be moved at the end of the time window that he gives me. Can I do bodywork and paint at my townhome, or my sponsor's shop? Hell no. Can I afford the six-hour round-trip commute to get to the CMC car unless it's a planned thrash session? No. This is why I'm a little sensitive to the whole fabricate/build/modify thing. If the rules say, for example, that to adjust ride-height, I need to fabricate steel spacers for the spring seats, that's a MAJOR project for me. I don't own metalworking gear or a welder, and buying that gear would cost me my season, for both cars. I can't just pop out the back door, wander out to the south 40 and my barn, where my car can just sit, and tinker for an hour. I need to plan, execute, then get in, get it done, then get out. If, for whatever reason, I don't complete the project, then the car will sit until I can find another multi-day block of time to finish it off. MUCH more practicable to buy an off-the-shelf solution that doesn't require fabrication skills, tooling, and time, but just bolts on. That's why I'm suggesting that when the directors and other powers-that-be talk about "cost containment," they consider the labor factor. Time has value. Whether it's a value based on hourly wages for somebody to perform a specific task, or time spent away from family, friends, etc., it still has a value. I'm also pretty sure that I'm not the only CMC racer that is in a similar situation. My deal with my co-owner is that he does the regular maintenance stuff and basic repairs on the car (since it's local to him), we collaborate on the major projects, and I handle the at-track thrashing when something breaks. Does that qualify me as a paid arrive-and-drive guy? I don't think so... And I'll ask again: even if it DID qualify me as an arrive and drive guy, WHY should that impact the way the rules are written? You as much as declare that the rules favor the DIY fabricator, yet this is NOT a builder's series? I'm confused by that. Please, take a hard look at the rules as written, and everywhere you see a cost-containment measure, assign a labor value to that measure and see if it's actually containing costs. In a lot of places, I think you'll see it doesn't. $80 in coil-over sleeves and an hour labor (paid or not) is MUCH cheaper than $10 in raw steel and six hours of screwing around designing, fabricating, adjusting, and tuning, and in the end, there's no difference in performance between the two approaches. As you said, there are two sides to the coin, hopefully this will help you to see my side with a little more clarity.

 

I'm seriously impressed that you're able to do a race weekend for $500! It costs me a lot more than that in fuel (tow and race gas) and consumables (tires, brakes, a bit in the kitty for oil and filter changes), and I split costs with my co-owner! I also instruct to reduce entry fee costs...

[roadracerwhite]

After just skimming through 4 pages of this wheel thread, and this not being the first time this topic on wheel spacers has come up.

 

Here is what I think;

 

If a spacer is permanently attached to a wheel. By permanently I mean screwed/welded then it becomes part of the wheel and is included in the weight. Sorry TJ, i know they make some strong glue and epoxy, I just don't count that as permanent. Each one of us could go to CCW or any of the wheel manufacturers and spend whatever it took to get a set of wheels with the correct bolt pattern , offset, width, etc.

[nape1548534725]

Sorry TJ, i know they make some strong glue and epoxy, I just don't count that as permanent.

 

What about the green Loctite (number escapes me) that's so hard you can machine it afterwards? I can't remember the number, but we've used it to fix wear surfaces in the ID of a steering pivot on an end loader. Pretty permanent to me.

[D Algozine]

What is the point of having a minimum wheel weight?

 

No I'm serious.......I think we (racers) are entitled to one or more of the directors or series director to explain to ALL why there is a minimum weight limit? And exactly how and why they arrived at the current weights.

 

I also think comments on weather $1200 to $1500 wheels is a logical move for the class, or is it within the intent of the rule.

 

Heres the skinny :

99% of the CMC racers followed the letter and the intent of the rule and bought readily available, inexpensive wheels. Many did, because its what they can affort and others because they understand the rule and its intent. By allowing a loop hole, you just F'd up the entire point of the rule and one of the major points of the class. Stand behind the rule clarification as long as you like, but it is seriously flawed.

You guys want to hang your hat on the wheels including a spacer added will in fact weigh 18lbs. Thats just fantastic, exempt NON of the commonly used (other 99%) wheels with the necessary spacers come close to 18lbs.

You just put 99% of the class at a disadvantage. And yes it is an advantage to have wheels that weigh 2-5 lbs less then your competitors, especially in a "spec type" class which CMC is. Especially if you have 22lbs wheels (commonly used, inexpensive and widely available) , add 1lb for spacer and your 5lbs off per wheel. That's rotating mass, unsprung weight...ect. With most the mass of the 18lb wheel to be centered, and thats another small advantage.

 

What CMC racer thinks expensive light weight wheels belong in the class? Again, I'm serious......who thinks that makes sense, and thinks its a good idea ?

[suck fumes1548534743]

Just FYI. Enkeis are cheap for light wheels. $205 ea in a group buy. Anybody can jump on that and do the same thing. In a way I did the CMC spirit method by choosing a $200 wheel vs a $750 per wheel from fikse or forgeline.