Members Al F. Posted October 16, 2013 Members Share Posted October 16, 2013 Two alternatives submitted from the same source so I thought I'd post both: 7.31.1 Wheels may be of any construction or material and must be 16 or 17 inch diameter. 7.31.1 Remove “of any construction or materialâ€; Add in its place “made of steel or aluminumâ€; Add “Wheels must be OEM (Do not have to be vehicle specific) or as purchased new from a retail source for less than $400 per wheel and readily available. No custom wheels.†A. Will decrease series cost because there is a cap on the price of the wheel and it won’t allow custom multi-piece wheels and only allows aluminum or steel wheels. B. It could impact safety if custom wheels are made poorly. C. Will promote series growth because it places a limit of what can be spent on wheels and will limit a potential competitive advantage. D. Will improve competition because multi-piece perfect wheels (min. weight and exact offset) wouldn’t be available to give that competitor an advantage over competitors who didn’t have them. E. It will provide more clarity because it limits spending, wheels must be made of aluminum or steel, and it does not allow custom wheels. 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. 7.31.2 Change weights to 16.0lbs and 18.0lbs. Add “Wheels must not be modified from original construction to change the weight or offset.†A. Will decrease series cost because currently wheels can be modified to add or remove weight in an unlimited number of ways. B. Could have an impact on safety if weight is removed from wheels and they fail. C. Will promote series growth because it will limit a potential competitive advantage. D. Will improve competition because modified wheels will not be allowed that could give a competitor a competitive advantage. E. It will provide clarity because it doesn’t allow modification to the wheels and doesn’t allow a minus 0.5lb tolerance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC#11 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 A question: What makes a wheel, custom? Does it have to be published in a manufacturer catalog? Does it just have to be readily available to the public? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadracerwhite Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Two alternatives submitted from the same source so I thought I'd post both: 7.31.1 Wheels may be of any construction or material and must be 16 or 17 inch diameter. 7.31.1 Remove “of any construction or materialâ€; Add in its place “made of steel or aluminumâ€; Add “Wheels must be OEM (Do not have to be vehicle specific) or as purchased new from a retail source for less than $400 per wheel and readily available. No custom wheels.†A. Will decrease series cost because there is a cap on the price of the wheel and it won’t allow custom multi-piece wheels and only allows aluminum or steel wheels. B. It could impact safety if custom wheels are made poorly. C. Will promote series growth because it places a limit of what can be spent on wheels and will limit a potential competitive advantage. D. Will improve competition because multi-piece perfect wheels (min. weight and exact offset) wouldn’t be available to give that competitor an advantage over competitors who didn’t have them. E. It will provide more clarity because it limits spending, wheels must be made of aluminum or steel, and it does not allow custom wheels. 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. 7.31.2 Change weights to 16.0lbs and 18.0lbs. Add “Wheels must not be modified from original construction to change the weight or offset.†A. Will decrease series cost because currently wheels can be modified to add or remove weight in an unlimited number of ways. B. Could have an impact on safety if weight is removed from wheels and they fail. C. Will promote series growth because it will limit a potential competitive advantage. D. Will improve competition because modified wheels will not be allowed that could give a competitor a competitive advantage. E. It will provide clarity because it doesn’t allow modification to the wheels and doesn’t allow a minus 0.5lb tolerance. This is an important part here, because technically the wheels can weigh 17.51 pounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHISSTC Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Team Incidental Contact submitted a RCR on this topic that addresses these issues. I haven't seen Al post it yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suck fumes1548534743 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Unless NASA invests in a bunch of small scales to spread to all regions that weigh in tenths of a pound specifically for wheel weight then you won't be able to police a .5 pound. Not that a half pound will make any difference anyway haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadracerwhite Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Unless NASA invests in a bunch of small scales to spread to all regions that weigh in tenths of a pound specifically for wheel weight then you won't be able to police a .5 pound. Not that a half pound will make any difference anyway haha. The point is to close the loophole, the Tolerance rule is in the drivers favor anyway. To prevent the next guy who copies you but stipulates the wheel weigh 17.51 instead of 18. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Al F. Posted October 17, 2013 Author Members Share Posted October 17, 2013 There are some duplicate RCRs Scott, we go with one per topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 This quote is borrowed form the previous 18 page wheel discussion. The author is a director explaining the whole point of the wheel weight rule. "We figured at the big money wheels would be around 14-16lbs. We wanted to keep those out." That quote sums it up nicely . All that is needed, is to modify the rule to clarify and eliminate the loop hole that directors allowed last season. I think this RCR does that nicely. Personally, $400 per wheel still seems pretty steep, but I suppose that can be debated by the directors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Keeping out big money wheels will still allow Aarons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suck fumes1548534743 Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Yah cause I stayed in the spirit of CMC and spent as little as possible on "cobbled together" wheels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHISSTC Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 This is what Team Incidental Contact would like to see: 7.31 Wheels/Tires 7.31.1 Wheels may be of a one, two, or three piece design constructed of aluminum or steel. 7.31.2 Wheels will be either 16 or 17 inches in diameter, and may not be greater than 9.5 inches wide. Wheel offset is open. 7.31.3 Wheel spacers may be used, but are in no circumstance considered to be part of the wheel and will not be included in the wheel weight. 7.31.4 Wheel weight is the weight of a clean, bare wheel that includes any coatings, such as paint, applied to the wheel, and excludes wheel balancing weights, valve stems, and wheel spacers. 16 inch wheels will weigh 16.0 lbs. or more. 17 inch wheels will weigh 18.0 lbs. or more. OEM wheels may be of any weight. 7.31.5 The only tires allowed are the Toyo Proxes RA1. Maximum 17 inch tire size is 275/40R17. Maximum 16 inch tire size is 255/55R16. ---4) Reason for change Will provide more clarity. The reasons have already been beat to death in 18 pages on the CMC forum. These changes assume that the RA1s series sponsored tire and that 16†tires are still available in 2014. If not, then the tire should be changed to the RR and the references to 16†wheels removed. Can the NASA/Toyo/Directors provide us with any additional insight on the tire sizes that are going to be available? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC#11 Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 This is what Team Incidental Contact would like to see: 7.31 Wheels/Tires 7.31.1 Wheels may be of a one, two, or three piece design constructed of aluminum or steel. 7.31.2 Wheels will be either 16 or 17 inches in diameter, and may not be greater than 9.5 inches wide. Wheel offset is open. 7.31.3 Wheel spacers may be used, but are in no circumstance considered to be part of the wheel and will not be included in the wheel weight. 7.31.4 Wheel weight is the weight of a clean, bare wheel that includes any coatings, such as paint, applied to the wheel, and excludes wheel balancing weights, valve stems, and wheel spacers. 16 inch wheels will weigh 16.0 lbs. or more. 17 inch wheels will weigh 18.0 lbs. or more. OEM wheels may be of any weight. 7.31.5 The only tires allowed are the Toyo Proxes RA1. Maximum 17 inch tire size is 275/40R17. Maximum 16 inch tire size is 255/55R16. ---4) Reason for change Will provide more clarity. The reasons have already been beat to death in 18 pages on the CMC forum. These changes assume that the RA1s series sponsored tire and that 16†tires are still available in 2014. If not, then the tire should be changed to the RR and the references to 16†wheels removed. Can the NASA/Toyo/Directors provide us with any additional insight on the tire sizes that are going to be available? Scott, I am going to pick on you b/c you were the last that posted. What if Enkei sold a "RPF10000001" wheel that weighs 18.1 lbs and is the perfect offset to meet the track width limit for a price of $1,200 / set? Would you be in favor of this wheel being legal? Playing devils advocate on this topic, but Aaron built a set of wheels for $1,000 (far less than what others feel the max should be) so why should they be deemed illegal? What if the adjustable spring perches are deemed legal? Should we then say that the only adjustable spring perches legal are some fancy $500 option that are available as a "bolt-in" piece? What about a $100 option that can be pieced together that serves the exact same purpose but on a "CMC budget". Wouldn't the cheaper option be in the full intent of CMC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suck fumes1548534743 Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 People only hear and see what they want too and no one seems to understand that I just showed everyone the cheap way to achieve the minimum wheel weight. My wheels in my opinion should be an encouragement to others that you can achieve a competitive wheel for far less than what a custom set costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHISSTC Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Scott, I am going to pick on you b/c you were the last that posted. Thanks. That's fine. I understand the purpose of this discussion. What if Enkei sold a "RPF10000001" wheel that weighs 18.1 lbs and is the perfect offset to meet the track width limit for a price of $1,200 / set? Would you be in favor of this wheel being legal? Playing devils advocate on this topic, but Aaron built a set of wheels for $1,000 (far less than what others feel the max should be) so why should they be deemed illegal? The short answer from our team perspective and the way our version of the RCR is written this year would be "yes". But I totally understand your perspective. From our current perspective, wheel spacers are only spacers, should not be permanently attached to wheels, and should not be counted towards the wheel weight. Unfortunately, that perspective also renders a creative and cost effective solution developed from a grayer shade of the rules as being illegal. Last year we submitted a RCR pertaining to wheel spacers and wheel weight that requested the loose wheel spacers also be included in the overall wheel weight value. That RCR was completely rejected based on the interpretation that it's not officially part of the wheel and therefore shouldn't be included and only if the spacer was permanently attached did it count. A LOT of folks missed that forum interpretation and have since taken strong exception to it. But the reason we wanted a loose spacer to count is that it is mounted to the hub in the same way, in the same location as a wheel, and is effectively accomplishing the same thing as a wheel of a different offset. In our minds at the time, that was the same thing as a wheel and would allow folks to run a variety of different spacers, both front to back and side to side, that wouldn't have to be permanently attached to the wheels and could allow for tuning and what not, but would also accomplish the same thing in a cheaper manner than having multiple sets of wheels in a variety of offsets and it would allow the wheels to be rotated to any corner of the car. However, knowing now that there will always be a group of folks who strongly believe a spacer permanently attached to a wheel now becomes a modified and still legal wheel, and that we fell we'd never be able to convince some of those same folks that a loose wheel spacer should ever count towards total wheel weight, that is why we went the direction we did and developed a same-but-different RCR for this year. In retrospect, the inclusion of a loose wheel spacer as part of the total wheel weight seems like it could have circumnavigated this whole wheel weight issue. I suppose we could offer that up again as an option this year. Include a loose wheel spacer as part of the overall wheel weight, along with wheel spacers that are permanently attached and I think we'd all be perfectly happy with that. The currently modified wheels would be legal, and those folks who have a problem with permanently attaching spacers to wheels (like us) would be happy too. Would that be a 'win' 'win' situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suck fumes1548534743 Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 I don't understand how you're ok with a loose spacer counting but not an attached one. How does that make any sense? If anything you could get a 15pd wheel with a narrow offset and then get a huge loose spacer and count it to make the 18pds. How is that going to be better? It'll just give someone an even bigger advantage with all the weight in the center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHISSTC Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 I don't understand how you're ok with a loose spacer counting but not an attached one. How does that make any sense? If anything you could get a 15pd wheel with a narrow offset and then get a huge loose spacer and count it to make the 18pds. How is that going to be better? It'll just give someone an even bigger advantage with all the weight in the center. Indeed. But since we all now understand how gray areas in the rules and a poorly advertised rule interpretation can be used to ones advantage when items are not clearly stated for all to see in the published rules set, we should all also realize that someone would likely try to out-fox the rules exactly as you have presented above. That's why we didn't merely regurgitate our RCR from last year, but instead formulated a new, and unfortunately, more restrictive one based on what we know now. When we proposed the same-but-different RCR last year, the intention was not to capitalize on any moment of inertia gains that could be had by using a thin-offset/massive spacer combination. We honestly weren't trying to introduce any gray areas into the rules and were definitely not smart enough at the time to figure that one out. The driving force behind it was a cheap set of less than maxi-width 16" wheels we already owned that we knew were very close to the minimum wheel weight, but also didn't have quite the ideal offset we wanted. They were right at the minimum weight on the bathroom scale we used to weigh them, but we knew that scale was not the most accurate way to weigh wheels. We also felt that since our wheels were not the maximum width allowed, that the minimum weight used for maxi-sized wheels should be less for narrower wheels. That opinion was squelched early on in no uncertain terms, so we abandoned it and went back to the issue of the spacer. We knew we could get a custom set of wheels made in the correct offset, but that was $$$. We also knew that we could use the wheels as-is with different sized spacers in the front and back to accomplish the same thing. The different sized spacers would have also allowed us to rotate the tires/wheels to different corners of the car to even out tire wear and save us some money. So, going along with the same reasoning as permanently attaching a spacer (which we have never been in favor of doing) we viewed the spacer as accomplishing the same thing with our existing wheel as a completely custom wheel would accomplish at 3 times the price. So, we thought, if it's doing the same job as a wheel in the same location as a wheel, why not allow it to be included in the wheel weight? Sound familiar? That's the same exact reasoning as if we were to permanently attach the spacer (which I repeat, we have never been in favor of doing). No Deal. Does that little piece of history help it make sense now? I don't want to get in another wheel weight discussion as we've already had 18 pages of that. But now I ask you, does the same wheel spacer somehow change it's purpose, function, or identity depending upon whether or not it is loose or permanently attached to the wheel? Or are we merely getting stuck on definitions that we need to move beyond? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Keeping out big money wheels will still allow Aarons. "No custom wheels"and spacers don't count as wheels. Seems strange that we need to actually say that out loud, but... A spacer is a spacer......and a wheel is a wheel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 People only hear and see what they want too and no one seems to understand that I just showed everyone the cheap way to achieve the minimum wheel weight. My wheels in my opinion should be an encouragement to others that you can achieve a competitive wheel for far less than what a custom set costs. They are less then a true store bought custom wheel, but they are still custom wheels. Based on the forum clarification of last year, not the current rules, you did come up with a great idea.......However.... 99% of the current racers are not going to get rid of the 3-4 sets of wheels they have, just to go out a buy 3-4 new sets in order to keep pace with a loop hole. In my opinion this discussion is not so much about what Aaron came up with, as much as it is,.......why did they allow spacers to be attached to wheels and count as a wheel? I haven't seen any other rule Mod that made adding two components to count as one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Keeping out big money wheels will still allow Aarons. "No custom wheels"and spacers don't count as wheels. Seems strange that we need to actually say that out loud, but... A spacer is a spacer......and a wheel is a wheel. But they are not custom nor are they big money. $250 each. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Algozine Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Keeping out big money wheels will still allow Aarons. "No custom wheels"and spacers don't count as wheels. Seems strange that we need to actually say that out loud, but... A spacer is a spacer......and a wheel is a wheel. But they are not custom nor are they big money. $250 each. Tig welding a spacer to a wheel makes it a custom wheel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshallmosty1548534738 Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 What is to keep me "Average Joe Racer" from selling wheels under my own brand by taking a RPF1 and adding a spacer and then selling them as an RPF1-1??... Then they are "off the shelf". We don't consider an OEM wheel as "custom" even though they had to design, tool, maufacture, market, sell that wheel, but for some reason just because they have a storefront and someone who answers the phone with "Thanks for calling ABC Wheel Co." makes it okay? However, just because a few creative racers in Texas decide to stretch the rules all that gets ignored and or twisted?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadracerwhite Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 What is to keep me "Average Joe Racer" from selling wheels under my own brand by taking a RPF1 and adding a spacer and then selling them as an RPF1-1??... Then they are "off the shelf". We don't consider an OEM wheel as "custom" even though they had to design, tool, maufacture, market, sell that wheel, but for some reason just because they have a storefront and someone who answers the phone with "Thanks for calling ABC Wheel Co." makes it okay? However, just because a few creative racers in Texas decide to stretch the rules all that gets ignored and or twisted?? If I bought the same wheels for my third gen and some bolt on adapters like what I have to bolt 4th gen wheels on my car, can I count the weight of those adapters to my wheel weight? I would have to bolt them to my car and then bolt the wheels to the car. I guess I could convert my car to use a ford bolt pattern, but I don't think the rules say I can do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguydave1548534741 Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 And so, we get to the Bill Clinton "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is" portion of the show... If we want to eliminate this particular loophole, I see three options, and not one of them is going to be popular. 1) Spec wheels for each chassis. Simple, low-cost, easy to police, will put the hurting on anybody that doesn't already have them. 2) Apply a rule that would probably run into multiple pages in length to restrict the wheels used to the actual intent of the rule. Hint: welded spacers okay, loose spacers not, does NOT make sense, and I'm pretty sure wasn't the intent of the rule in the first place. 3) Go with a wide-open wheel description, and let the chips fall where they may. Think cubic $$$ to get to that spec. NONE of the above are particularly appetizing. I would personally support a basic rule which keeps the dimensional and weight spec as is, and that makes wheel selection open, with clauses for "unmodified," "readily available from a retail source," and has a per-piece cap on price. "Unmodified" eliminates the spacer (as well as the valve stem and wheel weights) from the weight equation. "Readily available from a retail source" eliminates custom one-offs, which are NOT readily available, and ensures that ANY CMC RACER has the same access to them, whether his brother-in-law owns a CNC machine or not. "Price cap" restricts the per piece cost of the wheel to prevent using any form of high-dollar wheel, or any other manipulation. We do this already with dampers and wings, so adding wheels already has a precedent, and is just as easily policed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nape1548534725 Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 However, just because a few creative racers in Texas decide to stretch the rules all that gets ignored and or twisted?? Well, if that's the case, my 16lb 17" Magnesium wheels are legal because the adapters that I need to use to make them fit are part of the wheel. I just have really poorly made 2pc wheels that require you to bolt the center portion to the hub before you can bolt the "barrel" on the car. If we want to get creative with rules interpretations, I've got some that will make this seem tame! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suck fumes1548534743 Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 It's legal, go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.