RCR 14; limits on wheels

[Glenn]

Robert - my point was about perceived advantage. Price alone does not provide an advantage. If someone perceives an advantage where one does not exist based on physics, there is no amount of rules writting that will stop it.

Show me an 18lb CCW that will provide an advantage.

Show me how $4k wheels are an advantage.

 

I believe an aviation engineer has already given you the science and math about the effects rotational mass. Sorry you fail to understand that unsprung rotating mass does matter.

 

And with more name calling, attitudes, arguing, from many here - for those who read and do not post; e.g. future CMC potentials, current drivers, etc. You are giving a very poor impression of this series.

 

What keeps people racing in this series? This is a meta-picture question; not a Texas centric point of view.

I thought my comment was pretty clear in that I was saying price alone does not give an advantage as long as everything else is the same. I fully understand the physics behind the issues. One does not need to have a degree hanging on the wall to get it.

I am also not sure where I did any name calling.

Not sure how my POV is limited to the state I live in.

[Boudy1548534717]

Double Post. Ugh...

Edited October 28, 2013 by Guest

[Boudy1548534717]

Drawbacks:

A list has to be created. I can already hear the grumbling about how much work that is going to be.

A list has to be placed into the rules. I can already hear the grumbling about how that makes the rules longer and more complex.

The list would have to include not only wheel manufacturers and wheel models, but also specific wheel sizes...potentially creating a much larger list than initially envisioned.

A list has to be updated regularly to add wheels as manufacturers change their lineup. Do we want to come up with a maximum number of wheels on the list not to exceed 100 or so? I can see this list getting completely unmanageable over time as more and more wheels are added because, realistically, you can't take a wheel off once it's been added since somebody somewhere will have a set they claim they are still using.

 

A poll could easily create 90% of the list so and whoever grumbles is doing it to be difficult. I can't see a list of more than 20 wheels that are not covered by the term 'OEM.' We probably don't have 200 cars so calling for a list of 100 wheels outside of OEM is a bit extreme.

 

The annual maintenance to the list should be very minimal. Possibly even 1/100th the time it takes to read this thread. I see it being easier, more cost effective, and less hassle for rules in the future.

 

I thought my comment was pretty clear in that I was saying price alone does not give an advantage as long as everything else is the same. I fully understand the physics behind the issues. One does not need to have a degree hanging on the wall to get it.

I am also not sure where I did any name calling.

 

Glenn: Your comment was very clear. However I don't think it's a very valid perception. What you're not acknowledging is that $4,000 racing wheels that offer no performance advantage outside of 'looks' simply won't sell enough to pay for marketing. So then the average high end set of race wheels is designed specifically to offer the performance we are discussing. "NO?" You are defending the ability for a guy to get a set of custom made wheels because he feels he needs them to be stronger for safety reasons. That's BS, then I should be able to tie my cage to my A-pillars for safety as in most other modern race series. (my point here is that there are many areas where you could chose to champion safety, wheels should be bottom of the list) Then you claim you would quit if you have to purchase wheels as if your OEM were somehow being targeted for illegality. Come on Glenn, you tell me you are for lower cost but I can't see it in your rational on here. I know you well and don't understand you in here so I can certainly see how others might think you were arguing for the fun of it.

 

And yeah, I don't recall name calling either. That was a cheap-shot

 

Boudy

[D Algozine]

I agree, pretty sure that you would be hard pressed to have a complete list of wheels for the entire country of CMC racers and it be more then 20 wheels.

If the same format is followed, this would be very easy to put into a spreadsheet.

 

Changed my mind....added a new thread

http://www.camaromustangchallenge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4481

[Glenn]

Robert - My point is a price limit will not stop guys like Aaron from doing what he already has done. We will need to limit advantages on a technical basis. I also don't see many "racing" wheels in use in CMC. Pretty much all I see are aftermarket wheels designed for street use.

 

Had Arron used an aluminum spacer would we be having this conversation?

[Glenn]

Fikse FM5's in a 17x9.5 are 18lbs. They are a billet wheel. They retail for aprox $3500 a set of 4.

Tell me why they have an advantage over any 18lb wheel in CMC.

[MHISSTC]

I agree with Glenn in so far that if you are making an apples to apples comparison between two sets of 18lb wheels of identical dimensions, there is going to be little to no advantage of a $3500/set of wheels over a $700/set of wheels. There are better places to spend that $2800 difference in a CMC car.

 

However, if you are looking at currently available aftermarket and OEM wheels, the weight of the maxi-sized bare wheels are going to fall somewhere in the 19.5-25lb range. When comparing those wheels to the same 18lb Fiske 17x9.5 wheels, the Fiske wheels DO have an advantage.

 

The reason we did not specify a price cap on wheels in our RCR is due more to the concept of diminishing returns. From what I have seen, the cost of bare wheels that are legal and meet the minimum weight as manufactured are increasingly more expensive and are generally harder to get as you approach that minimum weight. Even if there is an advantage with the lighter wheels, we still feel there are better places to spend that $2800 in a CMC car. If someone REALLY feels like spending that kind of money on wheels to gain that particular advantage, then let them go right ahead and spend it. I think we'll choose to buy other consumables like tires, brakes and gas for multiple years instead.

[Glenn]

I agree with Glenn in so far that if you are making an apples to apples comparison between two sets of 18lb wheels of identical dimensions, there is going to be little to no advantage of a $3500/set of wheels over a $700/set of wheels. There are better places to spend that $2800 difference in a CMC car.

 

However, if you are looking at currently available aftermarket and OEM wheels, the weight of the maxi-sized bare wheels are going to fall somewhere in the 19.5-25lb range. When comparing those wheels to the same 18lb Fiske 17x9.5 wheels, the Fiske wheels DO have an advantage.

 

The reason we did not specify a price cap on wheels in our RCR is due more to the concept of diminishing returns. From what I have seen, the cost of bare wheels that are legal and meet the minimum weight as manufactured are increasingly more expensive and are generally harder to get as you approach that minimum weight. Even if there is an advantage with the lighter wheels, we still feel there are better places to spend that $2800 in a CMC car. If someone REALLY feels like spending that kind of money on wheels to gain that particular advantage, then let them go right ahead and spend it. I think we'll choose to buy other consumables like tires, brakes and gas for multiple years instead.

 

And there is the real rub...... it isn't that a $3500 wheel has an advantage in regards to the rules, but rather an advantage compaired to what you may be using. The rules spell out 18lb wheels. A change isn't needed because you only have 19lb wheels.

[MHISSTC]

... it isn't that a $3500 wheel has an advantage in regards to the rules, but rather an advantage compaired to what you may be using. The rules spell out 18lb wheels. A change isn't needed because you only have 19lb wheels.

 

Which is why we feel the primary changes that need to be made to the rule are a clarification in what defines a wheel for the purpose of determining a minimum weight, the exclusion of exotic materials and wheel modifications, and a reduction in the gray area in rounding error by including a decimal point to 18.0 lbs.

[Glenn]

... it isn't that a $3500 wheel has an advantage in regards to the rules, but rather an advantage compaired to what you may be using. The rules spell out 18lb wheels. A change isn't needed because you only have 19lb wheels.

 

Which is why we feel the primary changes that need to be made to the rule are a clarification in what defines a wheel for the purpose of determining a minimum weight, the exclusion of exotic materials and wheel modifications, and a reduction in the gray area in rounding error by including a decimal point to 18.0 lbs.

 

And all of that has been asked for. This alone will resolve most if not all the issues folks seem to have.

 

A price limit, not so much.

[D Algozine]

... it isn't that a $3500 wheel has an advantage in regards to the rules, but rather an advantage compaired to what you may be using. The rules spell out 18lb wheels. A change isn't needed because you only have 19lb wheels.

 

Which is why we feel the primary changes that need to be made to the rule are a clarification in what defines a wheel for the purpose of determining a minimum weight, the exclusion of exotic materials and wheel modifications, and a reduction in the gray area in rounding error by including a decimal point to 18.0 lbs.

 

And all of that has been asked for. This alone will resolve most if not all the issues folks seem to have.

 

A price limit, not so much.

 

(Horse is dead and been made into glue already)

However, without limiting the price and/or eliminating the custom option, it is still possible to get a set of wheels that weighs exactly 18lbs, is the perfect offset, and requires no spacers.

 

Eliminating a custom option, will:

1) Eliminate the big dollar wheel that can be produced to exactly fit the criteria, which is not an option for a typical CMC racers.

2) Eliminates the "homemade" custom wheel, ie welding spacers, lightening existing wheels, and/or other modifications to a "typicall" wheel, which, again is not a feasible option for a typical CMC racer.

 

Because 99% of the class runs off the shelf, non-ideal offset, somewhat heavier then minimum wheels that require a spacer to work properly.

I see that "Wheel list" thread has taken off like wild fire What a great idea NOT....

 

 

Edit:

But the way these things are typically discussed here, is much more entertaining.

 

What did he say......" He said, your tinselly hair needs more enriching " ??

"Hes not fat .....hes my brother.".........."Exactly"

See much more fun

Edited October 29, 2013 by Guest

[Glenn]

However, without limiting the price and/or eliminating the custom option, it is still possible to get a set of wheels that weighs exactly 18lbs, is the perfect offset, and requires no spacers.

 

And what is wrong with that?

 

Every rule in the book could be challenged with this line of thinking.

[soundguydave1548534741]

Okay, Glenn, then using YOUR logic, why don't we just flat open up the build rules for the engines and electronics? Keep the dyno restrictions of capped horsepower and torque, but let the competitor build whatever the hell they want for a powerplant? Let me guess: It would be too expensive, or it would open up all sorts of problems with platform equality since then the Fords can drop in a 351W, and restrict it back to CMC numbers and actually get torque, and a pool-table flat curve at that, just like is enjoyed by the LS/LT guys right now.

 

Hey, I hit the numbers, right? All-aluminum, all forged internals, dry-sump, stand-alone engine management. What's wrong with that?

 

The same metric can be applied to wheels. There IS a performance advantage to the "theoretical perfect wheel" with an ultra-lightweight hoop and center section (carbon fiber?), and a depleted uranium hub section to put ALL of the mass right in the middle. The problem? Cost.

 

Your logic here simply opens up the series to being a builder's series, like AI, where the thickness of the wallet dictates a performance advantage. Not good for the series now, or in the future, and I don't think anybody can argue that it would be.

 

Your logic simply flies in the face of the "Intent" section of the rulebook. Unless, of course, an allowance was granted on page two of discussion on a disallowed RCR from last year...

 

You can say all you want about how that advantage "won't show up on a CMC car," but in that, you're still just flat wrong. It's either an advantage or it isn't, and in this case the advantage is strictly dictated by the financial resources of the builder.

 

In the end this is simple logic:

 

Part "A" has a performance advantage over part "B." Part "A" costs 10x what part "B" does. Use of part "B" is then restricted to those that can afford to run it.

 

Our rule set is lousy with "cost-containment" measures, including some that actually cost the competitor more than a less-restricted aftermarket option, and you champion retaining them as-is. Now you come out in favor of what can (and will) wind up being a wheel cost (factoring in three sets or more, if the front and rear offsets are different) that could easily exceed the value of the rest of the car?

[Glenn]

Never said your examples don't give an advantage. And guys with that kind of wheel budget are just lined up at the door waiting to run CMC.

 

Why can't those wheels your worried about be limited in a way w/out using a price limit?

Allow steel and aluminum. That fixes some of it.

[soundguydave1548534741]

Glenn,

 

Just wondering if you're playing Devil's Advocate on this, or if you have a serious point about wheel unit price...

 

The way I'm looking at it: what I want to see in the rules is a restriction to what (as has been said before, elsewhere) 99% of the CMC folks are running. What I want to see eliminated are the 1% (if that) of the wheels that game the rules, like welding on a spacer, or home-CNC built pieces, or unobtanium/exotica construction. I honestly think the series will be best served with street wheels, be they OEM or aftermarket, that are easily obtainable, thus eliminating one more possible avenue of rules exploitation. This will keep the series costs down, and will allow tire rotation without having to mount/balance over and over again.

 

Now, the question is how to word that. Price point goes a long way towards eliminating the bulk of the custom pieces and exotic materials. If we limit to steel/aluminum, that would kill any OE magnesium pieces, like the ones TJ was talking about.

 

Just wondering where you're coming from on this, since it seems you're pretty dead-set against a cost-based rule.

 

Last question and food for thought: Is it currently legal, under the rule set as published, to change your car's bolt pattern? Can I take a 5x4.5" set of axles and hubs and have them re-drilled for 5x5"? If so, then the Ford camp could take advantage of the C5Z06 wheels as well... Or would that be pushing the rules envelope?

[suck fumes1548534743]

No way in hell am I or any other ford guy I know is going to want to change our bolt pattern! That's crazy! Plus how do you even know if the offset/backspacing on a GM wheel would even work on a ford??? Come on guys, all RCRs have been submitted, now just wait for the rules to be published. You're not going to change anything on the forum.

[Glenn]

I'm simply stating that price is not a perfect way of limiting what you and I want. You seem to be dead set on setting a price limit. I want guys to be able to use any wheel no matter the cost so long as an advantage isn't there. If they spend $10K on a set of 22lb wheels, let them. It may be what was on the car when they bought it as a street car. No reason to let them go to waist. Lots of guys here are savy ebay/craigslist shoppers. No reason to let perfectly legal wheels go un-used because of a price tag.

 

I proposed here and to the Directors -

1) Limit materials wheels can be made from: aluminum & steel.

2) Wheels must be used as manufactured. No spacers allowed to be attached. If spacers are continued to be allowed to be attached, they must be steel for a steel wheel and aluminum for an aluminum wheel.

 

These 2 additions will remove 99% of your worries. #1 removes exotic materials from being allowed by rule. #2 removes or minimizes the relocation of mass relative to the rest of the wheel. 2" thick aluminum spacers can only have so much mass. No worries w/ a steel wheel as they all will be well over min weight. This stops Aaron from doing what he did.

We could require that any material added to the wheel for increasing its weight to be added to the outter circumference of the barrel of the wheel. This will allow any wheel, but make it disadvantagious to use them.

 

With the 2 proposed additions above, show me a wheel that will provide an advantage.

 

For a guy who doesn't have an engineering degree, I sure can see how easy it is to limit advantages by means other than cost since cost will prevent the use of some wheels that were not targeted by the intent of the rule.

 

 

 

Al Frenandez commented on the advantage of a lighter wheel. He has an engineering degree from UC Berkly if I recall. I'm sure someone will tell me if he is wrong.

His quick math says it takes 1/8 hp difference for a car to accelerate a 18lb or 20lb wheel from 0-100mph in 13 seconds.

We all agree that 5hp is not the difference in winning or finishing 2nd. Yet here we are fighting to the death over 1/8hp.

Even if his math was off by a factor of 8, we are still talking about 1hp.

Show me a guy who finishes ahead of you and has 1 more hp than you and I'll show you a guy who can still finish ahead of you w/ 5hp less.

 

 

So you keep commenting on what you want to see. I can't say that what you want is really any different that what I want w/ regards to an end result. But this series isn't about you or me. I don't evolve the series into what I want. I try my best to vote w/ the best intrest of the group. That means I can't give you everything you want. The intrest of those who comitted to this series many years ago has to be considered.

 

As for bolt pattern changes.... I don't know. I don't see why we can't allow it. FYI - C5/C6 wheels are 5 on 4.75, not 5 on 5.

[MHISSTC]

As for bolt pattern changes.... I don't know. I don't see why we can't allow it. FYI - C5/C6 wheels are 5 on 4.75, not 5 on 5.

 

No thank you please.

[Glenn]

As for bolt pattern changes.... I don't know. I don't see why we can't allow it. FYI - C5/C6 wheels are 5 on 4.75, not 5 on 5.

 

No thank you please.

 

Why?

[soundguydave1548534741]

Glenn,

 

Believe it or not, I think we agree with each other on the desired final intent of the rule. I think our disagreement here lies in how to implement that desire.

 

One area your proposal doesn't cover is a custom-built wheel with a custom offset to eliminate the need for a spacer. The net result of that is no different that what Aaron did by welding on the spacer. Again, we have a situation where a custom-built wheel, with a 2" spacer as a part of the original build will be legal, and the whole thing counts as the wheel weight. Unless the rest of the class wants to pony up for those wheels (again times three or four), then we automatically place ourselves at a performance disadvantage. This isn't about choice, it's about budget.

 

If your proposal went as far as allowing the spacer, attached or not, to act as part of the wheel weight, then that eliminates the advantage gained by the integration in the custom wheel. It also makes all the current wheels obsolete, in that now the Enkei lightweights are legal BECAUSE of the spacer weight, which again becomes a performance advantage if you have the pocketbook.

 

As for the savvy shopping, under that guise, what's to stop me (if I so desired) from buying the unobtanium customs, selling them to my buddy for $50, and having him sell them back to me? My thinking wasn't JUST a price cap, but a three-pronged approach:

 

1) Minimum weight of 18.0lbs, unmodified, no exotic materials or construction.

2) "readily available from a retail source," wording stolen from the wing rule.

3) Price cap, also as used in the wing rule or the shock rule.

 

If you recall the discussion on wings and spoilers from a while back, the general gist was that any CMC driver should have access to it, not just the "savvy shopper" that found a DTM wing on ebay for $149.99. IIRC, the discussion went as far as to say that if you "home brew" a spoiler, then you need to sell that exact piece to any CMC driver that asks for it. With the price cap in place, that limits the "$1,000,000 price" game, and all I suggest is that we implement that cap in the wheel rule as well. I have no problem with ebay shopping, particularly if you can save money over retail on a legal part, and wheels would be a great example where that is very possible. It's still very possible to abuse that, though, hence the "readily available from a retail source" wording.

 

If not a price cap, then perhaps a minimum manufactured quantity in that exact spec? Like the 500pc homologation runs Ford did with their can-am cars? Or perhaps capping the offset at something reasonable, like +10mm or something similar? The first would eliminate truly custom wheels, the second would virtually require a spacer if both minimum wheel weight and maximimum track-width were desired. There are lots of options to achieve the stated goals, but those goals must be determined first.

 

I agree that the series isn't about what I want, or what you want, it's about what is best for the group as a whole. Another rule full of holes and grey areas certainly isn't the answer, though, is it?

 

I sincerely hope that the Directors' discussion on the wheel RCR is more involved than just accepting or rejecting the wording as proposed; CMC as a whole deserves a proper rule, and we have that opportunity right here, right now.

[Glenn]

One area your proposal doesn't cover is a custom-built wheel with a custom offset to eliminate the need for a spacer.

 

Why does this matter. As it sits now, my 4th gen is only allowed a 1/4" spacer w/ 17x9 OEM wheels. Are you saying you think my wheels are 1/4" away from having an advantage? Or do I already have one since I run a smaller spacer than you? Why does needing a spacer put one at a disadvantage? And don't give me the weight BS. I used to run 1/2" on my 16's and was never at a disadvantage.

 

The net result of that is no different that what Aaron did by welding on the spacer. Again, we have a situation where a custom-built wheel, with a 2" spacer as a part of the original build will be legal, and the whole thing counts as the wheel weight.

 

To what degree does the thinckness of the mounting flange on the wheel become an advantage. How do you know that OEM wheels do not already have this difference? What about aftermarket wheels that you agree should be in the class right now?

 

Unless the rest of the class wants to pony up for those wheels (again times three or four), then we automatically place ourselves at a performance disadvantage. This isn't about choice, it's about budget.

But this isn't a "need to" situation, it's a "want to" situation. I assure you 2" of aluminum will not factor in a win or 2nd place finish. You will not convince any of the Directors this is something we should be worried about.

 

I use aluminum rear suspension parts. Do you? Should I be called a cheater because you don't? Should the rule be changed because you don't want to run the same cause you would have to "re-invest"? There are lots of places where one racer or another has done a better job than the other w/in the intesnt of the rules (yes, the rulles intended the above sitiation - custom carved wheels w/ a perfect offset and right on the nose minimum weight), it doesn't mean the rules need to be changed to keep others from needing to do the same. For many years folks here didn't run any wheel spacers as they didn't think the increase in track was worth messing with. Now almost everyone runs them. They had to go out and buy them. It is something the individual racer will have to figure out for themselves - Do I build a max effort car or not. Do I change my set-up for each track or not? Do I buy new tires each event or not? Do I use nitrogen or not? Do I pay to have a crewchief at the track to check hot pressures or not? Do I buy the thinnest, lightest firesuit to keep my body core temp lower or not? The list goes on. Do I test? Do I do the Friday test day? Do I strip the car completely before each re-paint to reduce weight? Where do we stop once we worry about 2" of aluminum?

No matter where the limit is placed to prevent spending to gain an advantage, there will be someone who feels we didn't go far enough. If you get all that you want, there will be a guy/gal who feels you half assed it and should have gone further. The cheaper we make this class, the more folks who want it to be cheaper to run. Surely you can understand this.

 

 

2) "readily available from a retail source," wording stolen from the wing rule.

3) Price cap, also as used in the wing rule or the shock rule.

And what do we do w/ a guy who has 4 sets of 100% legal wheels (according to your intent) that are no longer in production for a car that was built 25 years ago? Sell them cause someone else can't go and buy them?

Don't use the wing/shock rule. Serious advantages can come from exspensive wings/shocks. And if it was up to me, we wouldn't have wings. This was forced upon the Directors by NASA HQ. The directors minimized its impact w/a price cap. Remember, NASA HQ has final say on all CMC rules. Yep, guys who don't even race CMC have final say.

 

The reason we don't need to do it for wheels is the wheel can only get so round. It can only get so light (relocated mass) before I fails. The gains are so small compaired to wings and shocks it isn't worth the time I put into this from the very first post.

 

I sincerely hope that the Directors' discussion on the wheel RCR is more involved than just accepting or rejecting the wording as proposed; CMC as a whole deserves a proper rule, and we have that opportunity right here, right now.

I can honestly say it is one of the top 2-3 subjects. I have submitted my proposed changes w/ little regard to what was submitted in any RCR.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Guest

[MHISSTC]

As for bolt pattern changes.... I don't know. I don't see why we can't allow it. FYI - C5/C6 wheels are 5 on 4.75, not 5 on 5.

 

No thank you please.

 

Why?

 

Mostly because of the PITA factor.

 

OK then. Since we are operating in the land of hypotheticals, I have the perfect wheel solution for CMC. For the sake of argument, let's take this to the extreme and spec one, yes ONE, wheel for all of CMC with no modifications. Spacers are open, so use whatever you need to put the wheel where you need it.

 

Now here is the wheel: XXR Series 530 17x9.75 4x100 bolt pattern, +25mm offset, $116 each, and free shipping. Super cheap, super sexy, off the shelf, no custom manufacturing, and fits the 275 wide Toyos better than even the 9.5" wide wheels. No one cares about wheel weight now since this is the only one you can use with no changes in offset or hole pattern. And no single platform is at a disadvantage because everyone has to redrill their hubs or use one of those goofy lug pattern conversion spacers.

 

[Glenn]

As for bolt pattern changes.... I don't know. I don't see why we can't allow it. FYI - C5/C6 wheels are 5 on 4.75, not 5 on 5.

 

No thank you please.

 

Why?

 

Mostly because of the PITA factor.

 

OK then. Since we are operating in the land of hypotheticals, I have the perfect wheel solution for CMC. For the sake of argument, let's take this to the extreme and spec one, yes ONE, wheel for all of CMC with no modifications. Spacers are open, so use whatever you need to put the wheel where you need it.

 

Now here is the wheel: XXR Series 530 17x9.75 4x100 bolt pattern, +25mm offset, $116 each, and free shipping. Super cheap, super sexy, off the shelf, no custom manufacturing, and fits the 275 wide Toyos better than even the 9.5" wide wheels. No one cares about wheel weight now since this is the only one you can use with no changes in offset or hole pattern. And no single platform is at a disadvantage because everyone has to redrill their hubs or use one of those goofy lug pattern conversion spacers.

 

 

So how do we re-ballance the platforms w/ regards to track width? I also don't think the 25mm offset will work on a 4th gen.

[MHISSTC]

I have submitted my proposed changes w/ little regard to what was submitted in any RCR.

 

That's not very comforting.

[Glenn]

I have submitted my proposed changes w/ little regard to what was submitted in any RCR.

 

That's not very comforting.

 

Why, I can't have an opinion?