wheel weight determination and policing

[MHISSTC]

...enough w/ the Texas bashing. This is a National forum and the National Director posted it here. To continue with those comments only shows your lack of seriousness in resolving what you feel is a problem. It points to what I see as a desire to just keep on bitching...

 

Sorry. I didn't mean this to come across as Texas bashing and I DO want to see this resolved. I was merely pointing out that the majority of respondents in this thread who understand or agree with the current interpretation seem reside in Texas while the majority of folks who question or do not understand the current interpretation do not. I think that is partly due to the fact that the National CMC Director lives in Texas and is in much closer contact to the local Texas racers than with the local racers in the other regions. Face to face discussions seem to help much more with understanding. That's it. No Texas bashing at all. The rule, plain and simple, needs to be rewritten so that it is clear enough to stand on it's own across every region with NO further explanation needed in a multi-page forum discussion.

[Glenn]

I agree. If you dig deep enough in the past here I have always said that. No matter how we all try to ensure rules are clear, there will be someone who doesn't fully understand. I don't think one single person has come on here from any region and disagreed about this rule needing some work.

 

So saying that we need to re-write the rule to be more clear about the allowed modifications from this point forward is just beating a dead horse. We all know this. It will not happen while the National Director is unavailable. A Tech Bulletin will surely be released in the coming weeks. Once rules silly season starts it will be added.

 

One more thing to add.... Every region is represented in the rules making process. Each Director walked away from last years meetings knowing what was changing and why. From there it is posted on the forums. So I found out at the same time your loca repl found out. All directors had the same face time with regards to this rule. I didn't need any conversations with Al after the rules meeting to understand. I knew the answer. I was asked and I gave the answer. There was no "local advantage".

[cozog1548534733]

I was merely pointing out that the majority of respondents in this thread who understand or agree with the current interpretation seem reside in Texas while the majority of folks who question or do not understand the current interpretation do not.

 

Just because every registered user isn't posting their opinion, doesn't mean they don't have one or don't understand the issue.

 

The rule needs to be clarified by explicitly defining what a "wheel" is and what counts towards weight. Personally, if wheel weight is being checked in tech, I would require the racer to dismount the wheel and have it weighed. That's the only way to know for sure the if it meets the rules. However, I don't see why we couldn't get a thoroughly used RA1 (like cords showing), weight it and add that to the min 18.0 wheel weight to get a minimum weight for wheel AND tire. Would make teching it MUCH easier.

 

These are things that need to be discussed by the directors during the annual rule revision to resolve this issue.

[MHISSTC]

...I don't see why we couldn't get a thoroughly used RA1 (like cords showing), weight it and add that to the min 18.0 wheel weight to get a minimum weight for wheel AND tire. Would make teching it MUCH easier.

 

Agreed. Weighing an "as raced" complete wheel/tire assembly seems much simpler and quicker to do at tech than requiring any amount of further dismounting and disassembly of tires, weights, etc.

[nape1548534725]

...I don't see why we couldn't get a thoroughly used RA1 (like cords showing), weight it and add that to the min 18.0 wheel weight to get a minimum weight for wheel AND tire. Would make teching it MUCH easier.

 

Agreed. Weighing an "as raced" complete wheel/tire assembly seems much simpler and quicker to do at tech than requiring any amount of further dismounting and disassembly of tires, weights, etc.

 

Weighing a corded RA1 on a legal 18lb wheel gives the advantage to the person who can afford 15lb wheels and new tires all the time, especially in qualifying.

[BADVENM]

By introducing the wheel and tire combo you're introducing another variable, the tire.

 

A corded tire might weight xx pounds, or a really corded tire may weigh xx pounds. To what degree of cording are you referring to?

 

What does a tire at full tread depth weigh? What about 1/32, 2/32, 3/32, 4/32, 5/32 etc. Who is gonna tech the tread depth of the tire? Are you teching just one tire for tread depth, 2, 3, all?

[MHISSTC]

Weighing a corded RA1 on a legal 18lb wheel gives the advantage to the person who can afford 15lb wheels and new tires all the time...

 

Isn't the current advantage already given to the person who can always afford the brand new shaved set of tires? I'd rather have the lightest tire possible with a slighter heavier wheel to meet the minimum weight requirement, however it is determined, in order to minimize the rotational inertia, accelerate quicker, and have shorter braking distances. The opposite would be true with a heavier tire on a lighter wheel that meets the same package minimum weight requirement.

 

By introducing the wheel and tire combo you're introducing another variable, the tire.

 

Could someone get their hands on a very used 275 RA1 that we could have shaved right down to the cords all the way across the tread face? Surely you can't get the tire much lighter than that? At that point, they'd be worn out and there would be no reason to check tread depth since any other tire would weigh more. Weight it, or maybe 3 to get an average sample weight, and use that for the baseline measurement added to the current 18lb minimum wheel weight. Can you call up Toyo and get this kind of data? No need to tech more than one tire/wheel combo on any car if you leave it open to the tech official to select a "single representative tire/wheel combination as raced".

[CMC#11]

a rough estimate is each 1/32nd of tire weighs 1 lb.

I personally weighed, on a postal scale, a shaved 4/32nd tire vs a shaved 2/32nd tire and it was right at a 2 lb difference.

[Sidney]

But don't you still purchase the lightest wheel given the Spec Tire base weight and it's the wheel weight that truely matters? It might be simpler to track weigh (at the track) a wheel/tire combo but that's not really the weight you're trying to restrict/enforce. I think you're opening a much bigger can of worms trying to figure out just how far down Bob Denton and TJ Bain are going to burn down a set of RA1's.

 

Sidney

[nape1548534725]

Isn't the current advantage already given to the person who can always afford the brand new shaved set of tires? I'd rather have the lightest tire possible with a slighter heavier wheel to meet the minimum weight requirement, however it is determined, in order to minimize the rotational inertia, accelerate quicker, and have shorter braking distances. The opposite would be true with a heavier tire on a lighter wheel that meets the same package minimum weight requirement.

 

This is why you don't want to weigh the wheel and tire. It makes it more complicated instead of less complicated.

[suck fumes1548534743]

You guys are trying to complicate a very easy way to tech a weight on a bare wheel.

[Glenn]

A few years back the directors emailed back and forth about trying to come up w/ a weigth of a RA1 that was completely worn out. We came to the same conclusion you guys seem to be coming to, lack of consistancy.

 

How worn out is "worn out"?

How consistant is the RA1 from the start w/ regards to weight?

If Toyo changed the manufacturing process, would the weight change up or down and would they tell us?

 

Seems we were either going to have too tight of a number and DQ folks who didn't deserve it, or allow a larger margin of error that would result in even lighter wheels. I think we decided to leave this one alone and just use the weight of the wheel. Its more complex, requires a little more effort, but the error factor is much smaller.

[suck fumes1548534743]

Amen! Leave this whole issue alone and keep it the way it's always been. Even though apparently most didn't know about it.

[soundguydave1548534741]

I've been out actually racing, so I'm a bit late to the party on a few points here.

 

DISCLAIMER ONE: The intent of this post is to point out a potential problem with the way the rules are written and/or administered and/or enforced, not to take personal shots at any participant, director, or region, so PLEASE read it in that context.

 

DISCLAIMER TWO: This is specifically for Suck Fumes: I personally think you found a glaring loophole, drove the truck through it, and I congratulate you for it. You did what every racer SHOULD do: figure something out, check with your director, and go for it. Based on all the video evidence that I've seen posted from Nats, you drove the hell out of the car, and in NO WAY could a "potential" wheel weight violation account for the margin of victory. That margin was all you, and I offer my congratulations. This is NOT sour grapes, I wasn't there, I didn't compete, and I have no pony in that race, so please don't misconstrue my following comments as being directed at you.

 

All taken from the 2013V2 rule book:

 

1. INTRODUCTION

The following rules are not guidelines for this series but an actual listing of allowed and required modifications. The only legal modifications are those specifically allowed by applicable rules. If not specifically allowed, any modifications are prohibited.

 

This is the "If it doesn't say you can, then you can't" clause that forms the backbone of the rule book.

 

2. INTENT

Modifications will be limited to those necessary to promote safety, close competition, and flexibility to enable drivers to learn and experiment with the principles of race car setup within boundaries intended to limit expenses, thereby providing the drivers with fun, exciting, and challenging yet approachable racing.

 

This is the "cost containment" clause, as well as justification for limiting what can be done on the cars.

 

3.6 Non-conforming Equipment

Any equipment that does not conform to the rules must have prior written approval by the CMC Board of Directors which must be kept with the car’s logbook at all times. For consideration, approval must be made, in writing, 30 days prior to the date of competition. It is the intention of this class not to allow any modifications that would increase the cost of competition.

 

This section essentially requires a racer looking to exploit a grey area to contact National, in writing, to obtain an exception to the existing rule book. Important note: The last sentence is the rules-book attachment of the interpretation that if "the fast guys have it, then everybody else will think they need it too." This is intended to limit any "grey area" expense that will drive up the perceived cost of building or racing the car.

 

7.1 Allowed Modifications

Other than those items specifically allowed by the rules, no other part or component may be modified, removed, or disabled. If there are any "questionable" or "gray" area modifications, the competitor shall contact the CMC Board of Directors for clarification before competition.

 

Limited production components and/or prototypes must be approved by a Director prior to competition to ensure their use and lack of availability to all competitors will not result in a competitive advantage.

 

This section prevents the modification of existing parts unless specifically authorized as referenced in section 3.6, quoted above. It also specifically calls out prototypes and limited-production pieces.

 

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.

 

This specifies what constitutes a legal wheel, and provides a minimum net weight and maximum diameter and width for the wheel.

 

Section 3.2

All requests for clarifications or interpretations of rules shall be made via email to a Director. The Directors will return official clarifications to the competitor via email. Rules clarifications will be used as the basis for re-writing rules as necessary.

 

Taking a look over the length of this thread, it seems to me that rules interpretation was in error concerning the legality of the Enkei with the welded-on spacers.

 

First: Section One is violated, since nowhere in the rule book are you specifically allowed to modify a wheel by welding on the spacer to make weight.

 

Second: Section Two is violated, since the modified wheel/spacer assembly meets none of the listed criteria. It is clearly a bid to gain performance.

 

Third: Since Section 3.6 was not invoked as a defense, either in tech or in this thread, prior approval for the modification was NOT approved by the Executive Board 30 days prior to the event, therefore the specified part does not qualify for exemption from the rules AS WRITTEN.

 

Fourth: Section 7.1 was violated, as the part was clearly modified (welding two separate parts together, changing the function of the spacer and also changing the net weight of the wheel), yet said modification was not "specifically allowed by the rules."

 

Fifth: By the letter of Section 7.31, the modified wheel meets all the criteria. This, however, assumes that it passes the balance of the applicable rules in the book.

 

Nowhere in the rule book is the allowance to weld the two pieces together for the purposes of combining them as one part specifically allowed. In addition, it isn't listed in the 2012 Rules Tech Bulletin, which would form the core of the rules changes to the 2013 rule book.

 

In the case of 2012 RCR #17, the discussion ended with "If you want your spacer to count as part of the wheel, permanently attach it to the wheel. " Please note, however, this does NOT count as "specifically allowed" in Section 7.1, particularly since the RCR in question was rejected. In addition, that is in violation of Section 3.2, which requires email communication directly between the competitor and the director, NOT a forum posting. Nowhere in the rules is there a pointer to the forum for "official" rules clarification. Assume, for whatever reason, you don't want to take a wheel and weld the spacer on. That means that you can have either A) an 18lb wheel plus a 2lb spacer for a total weight of 20lbs and be right at the legal limit, or B) a 16lb wheel plus a welded 2lb spacer for a total weight of 18lbs, and be right at the legal limit. Where does that stop? Can I use a STUPIDLY light wheel and weld it to the AXLE, and have that count?

 

SUMMARY: The modified wheel was deemed legal, done deal. My real question is how that ruling is justified given the wording of the existing rule book. It clearly violates at least Section 7.1 twice, in that the spacer and the wheel have been modified, yet there is no allowance for that modification written into the rules. That may not have been the intent of the directors, who may have felt that the forum posting was sufficient notice, but as has been pointed out in the past, not all CMC racers read or participate on the forums. For the modification to those parts to be legal per 7.1, a specific allowance to weld/bolt/epoxy the spacer to the wheel MUST be included in the rule book, most likely under 7.31. I'm sure the intent of the wheel rules is not to encourage spending ridiculous amounts of money on custom wheels, but to limit the racers to fairly common, inexpensive wheels with rough parity between platforms.

 

SUGGESTION: (NOT an RCR!!) We currently specify SIXTEEN different legal transmissions, and if you have one not on the list, then you're illegal. I see no reason that we can't specify sixteen legal (unmodified) wheels, eight with a 5" bolt circle, and eight with a 4.5" bolt circle, and just be done with it. As an alternative, include the weight of loose spacers in with the wheel weight. For compliance testing, with the car in impound, pull and mark the wheel, then weigh the spacer(s) if any. Next, after the marked wheel has been stripped down (no tire, cleaned of rubber clag, valve stem and weights), weigh that, and add the two numbers together. If the sum isn't equal to or greater than 18.000lbs, it's a DQ. I fail to see how that's too hard. Yes, a competitor could change or delete the spacer and thus be illegal later, but part of random compliance checks is that they can happen to anybody at any time, like getting sent to the scales or dyno. If somebody tries to game that, they're really not operating in the "spirit of CMC" to begin with, and they'll eventually get caught out on something.

 

I personally don't favor custom, one-off solutions to anything in CMC, and would rather see spec parts rather than backyard engineering exploiting loopholes.

[suck fumes1548534743]

Nothing was backyard engineered or loopholed. I think the horse has lost it's head and two legs. Keep kicking it might twitch here in a minute.

[Glenn]

So far I agree w/ you up to this point:

 

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.

 

 

This specifies what constitutes a legal wheel, and provides a minimum net weight and maximum diameter and width for the wheel.

 

First: Section One is violated, since nowhere in the rule book are you specifically allowed to modify a wheel by welding on the spacer to make weight

 

Here is where you are wrong and the point everyone seems to miss.

If that "suposed" illegal wheel was measured and digitized and carved out of a billet blank on a CNC, it would be 100% legal as long as it fell w/in the guidlings of the rule you posted. What is the difference in starting w/ an existing wheel and mod'ing it to be legal?

The rules.... Once they address an allowed item, they spell out it's criteria for legality. If custom wheels were not allowed, it would be stated. If only off the shelf comonly available wheelsw here legal, it would spell it out (like in the wing rule). The rule gives the specs to be legal, and stops. There are no further limitations.

 

Loophole...... This is incorrect as well. The fact that the Directors addressed this very issue and allowed it through a vote and public announcement means it was not a loop-hole. It was explicitly allowed. He asked once again to be sure and was told yes. He exploited nothing and no loop-hole existed. Your percived reality was not in fact reality.

 

Second: Section Two is violated, since the modified wheel/spacer assembly meets none of the listed criteria. It is clearly a bid to gain performance.

 

Once welded to the wheel, it is no longer a spacer, it is part of the wheel and what makes up its offset. It is now a different offset wheel.

This could come back to bite Arron if we determin that the platform he is in needs a track width reduction. It has happened before and could happen again. He will be forced to mill off material or remove the spacers and either of which will not make the wheel non-compliant. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

 

Third: Since Section 3.6 was not invoked as a defense, either in tech or in this thread, prior approval for the modification was NOT approved by the Executive Board 30 days prior to the event, therefore the specified part does not qualify for exemption from the rules AS WRITTEN.

 

This is not relevant since permission was granted to EVERYONE via the decided interpretation of the rule posted here 10 months ago. There are many rules in the rulebook that have need an interpretation that don't have the included clarification. Obviously this one is a hot topic and requires such an addition.

 

You are correct on section 3.2, but...... That should be fixed soon. Once agian, not Arrons fault and not a reason to DQ him at Nationals.

[suck fumes1548534743]

Maybe one day people will understand that winning is 80% driver, 20% car. If Mosty showed up at nationals with his fox and kicked everyone ass I guarantee you people would find some 8 page reason as to why he's fast. But of course it's never the driver it's always the car that wins right (rolling eyes).

[soundguydave1548534741]

So far I agree w/ you up to this point:

 

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.

 

 

This specifies what constitutes a legal wheel, and provides a minimum net weight and maximum diameter and width for the wheel.

 

First: Section One is violated, since nowhere in the rule book are you specifically allowed to modify a wheel by welding on the spacer to make weight

 

Here is where you are wrong and the point everyone seems to miss.

If that "suposed" illegal wheel was measured and digitized and carved out of a billet blank on a CNC, it would be 100% legal as long as it fell w/in the guidlings of the rule you posted. What is the difference in starting w/ an existing wheel and mod'ing it to be legal?

The rules.... Once they address an allowed item, they spell out it's criteria for legality. If custom wheels were not allowed, it would be stated. If only off the shelf comonly available wheelsw here legal, it would spell it out (like in the wing rule). The rule gives the specs to be legal, and stops. There are no further limitations.

 

So what, exactly, is the intent of the rule in terms of actual application? I guess what I'm asking is what the vision of the "standard" wheel setup was when the rule was drafted? Does Aaron's combined wheel/spacer fit with that vision? If so, then simply adding a line to the rules specifically allowing wheel modification via welding spacers on would make it consistent with the rest of the book. End of problems.

 

Loophole...... This is incorrect as well. The fact that the Directors addressed this very issue and allowed it through a vote and public announcement means it was not a loop-hole. It was explicitly allowed. He asked once again to be sure and was told yes. He exploited nothing and no loop-hole existed. Your percived reality was not in fact reality.

 

Respecfully, I have to disagree here. It was NOT explicitly allowed, as it is in neither the rule book nor in a technical bulletin. Remember, "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't." THAT is what I have issue with, not the genius behind this mod! If that doesn't define loophole, I don't know what does.

 

Second: Section Two is violated, since the modified wheel/spacer assembly meets none of the listed criteria. It is clearly a bid to gain performance.

 

Once welded to the wheel, it is no longer a spacer, it is part of the wheel and what makes up its offset. It is now a different offset wheel.

This could come back to bite Arron if we determin that the platform he is in needs a track width reduction. It has happened before and could happen again. He will be forced to mill off material or remove the spacers and either of which will not make the wheel non-compliant. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

If the spacer is no longer a spacer, but part of the wheel, then the wheel has been modified, which is proscribed in Section Two. This certainly provides a performance benefit in that you've dropped both unsprung weight AND rotational inertia. If that's the intent of the rules, then we should combine the weight of wheels and spacers, and not force the competitor to buy new stuff every time there's a trackwidth adjustment just to stay competitive. A simple spacer change (possibly in material as well) should be sufficient. The way you're outlining it, that would actually increase the cost of entry or retention in the series.

 

Third: Since Section 3.6 was not invoked as a defense, either in tech or in this thread, prior approval for the modification was NOT approved by the Executive Board 30 days prior to the event, therefore the specified part does not qualify for exemption from the rules AS WRITTEN.

 

This is not relevant since permission was granted to EVERYONE via the decided interpretation of the rule posted here 10 months ago. There are many rules in the rulebook that have need an interpretation that don't have the included clarification. Obviously this one is a hot topic and requires such an addition.

 

Agreed, and if the clarification was written into the rules, then nobody would be having this discussion. At the very least, it should have been included as a tech bulletin, not just buried in the explanation of a rejected RCR.

 

You are correct on section 3.2, but...... That should be fixed soon. Once agian, not Arrons fault and not a reason to DQ him at Nationals.

 

Also agreed 1,000,000%. I brought this up because I believed (and still do) that we had a procedural error on the administration side, not that the competitor was in the wrong. Eliminating this error (and as you pointed out, others like it) will go a long way towards a more cohesive rulebook that offers anyone interested a single-point source of information on series procedures and vehicle legality. Nobody should have to wade through all the posts on the forum to figure out if a particular part or mod is legal. If it's in the rule book, then it's legal, and if it's not, then it's illegal. Tech bulletins to clarify between rule editions are perfectly valid, and are grouped in one spot, not scattered through multiple threads. That's all I'm trying to point out.

[roadracerwhite]

Scott, I think you hit the nail on the head here. This is exactly what the thread is all about. It isn't about Aaron's wheels.

 

Would there have been this much of a stink if Aaron had showed up with an unmodified set of Jongbloed's, Forgelines, or CCW's that were 18 lbs and cost way more than $1,000?

 

Nope... ...which is silly all by itself, but at least the legality of it wouldn't require what seems to be a Texas centric interpretation. The key term there is "unmodified".

 

So an "unmodified" set of 18 lb $3,000 wheels are ok but a "modified" set of 18 lb $1,000 wheels shouldn't be legal?

 

Exactly why the rule needs to be clarified in writing and not by interpretation.

[D Algozine]

Maybe one day people will understand that winning is 80% driver, 20% car. If Mosty showed up at nationals with his fox and kicked everyone ass I guarantee you people would find some 8 page reason as to why he's fast. But of course it's never the driver it's always the car that wins right (rolling eyes).

 

Stop !!! As difficult as this may seem for you to understand...........Non of this is about YOU ! Read Sounddaves disclaimer. He explained it perfectly. Really 80-20 ???

 

This is about the rules.......the rules process.......changes that some feel need to be addressed..........how clarification of rules are handled and communicated..........why this rule was modified...........Discussion that some feel it should be further clarified and reversed....etc...

Edited September 17, 2013 by Guest

[D Algozine]

Would there have been this much of a stink if Aaron had showed up with an unmodified set of Jongbloed's, Forgelines, or CCW's that were 18 lbs and cost way more than $1,000?

 

Real answer...No. But since he won, the spot light would have still been on him and his car. Once is was known that the wheels were big dollar, pretty sure it would have lead to a discussion about the wheel rule and the "intent". But I guess we'll never know for sure.

 

Are you suggesting that by following the letter of the current rule, which for some reason allows some pretty crazy expensive wheels, that because its "legal" its good for CMC, and shouldn't be revised ?

 

Regardless the rule needs to be reviewed, discussed and revised. (my opinion)

[Glenn]

Would there have been this much of a stink if Aaron had showed up with an unmodified set of Jongbloed's, Forgelines, or CCW's that were 18 lbs and cost way more than $1,000?

 

Real answer...No. But since he won, the spot light would have still been on him and his car. Once is was known that the wheels were big dollar, pretty sure it would have lead to a discussion about the wheel rule and the "intent". But I guess we'll never know for sure.

 

Are you suggesting that by following the letter of the current rule, which for some reason allows some pretty crazy expensive wheels, that because its "legal" its good for CMC, and shouldn't be revised ?

 

Regardless the rule needs to be reviewed, discussed and revised. (my opinion)

 

Why now is the amount of money one is capable of spending on wheels an issue? Why not 6 months ago, last year? Why now?

[D Algozine]

Would there have been this much of a stink if Aaron had showed up with an unmodified set of Jongbloed's, Forgelines, or CCW's that were 18 lbs and cost way more than $1,000?

 

Real answer...No. But since he won, the spot light would have still been on him and his car. Once is was known that the wheels were big dollar, pretty sure it would have lead to a discussion about the wheel rule and the "intent". But I guess we'll never know for sure.

 

Are you suggesting that by following the letter of the current rule, which for some reason allows some pretty crazy expensive wheels, that because its "legal" its good for CMC, and shouldn't be revised ?

 

Regardless the rule needs to be reviewed, discussed and revised. (my opinion)

 

Why now is the amount of money one is capable of spending on wheels an issue? Why not 6 months ago, last year? Why now?

 

Because no one realized or thought about spending $1500 plus on a set of CMC wheels. With the discussion about this clarification, it has been suggested that buying/building widely expensive wheels is in fact legal. Apparently now one ever considered that option.....looks like it needs to be considered now.

Pretty sure there are a couple more of these gems laying in wait, within the rules.

[suck fumes1548534743]

So you're saying the rule was fine until someone actually utilized it?

[D Algozine]

So you're saying the rule was fine until someone actually utilized it?

 

Nothing to add or reply...Just wanted to capture this.......in case it gets erased.