RCR 14; limits on wheels

[MHISSTC]

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

 

My creative solution is to buy 12 pairs of hoops for 3-piece wheels where the inner and outer hoops are all identical and symmetrical and "pre-mount" two complete sets of deflated "dry" tires along with one set of "rain" tires on the glued together and sealed hoops. Since the fox has different offset needs front and rear to maximize the track width, I'd buy only 4 sets of wheel hardware, and 4 wheel centers...two each in different offsets. Then, no matter what corner I want to put a specific tire on, or how I need to flip it to maximize tire life, I never have to dismount the tire from the wheel, and I never need a spacer. I just deflate the tire, unbolt the center from the hoop and either flip it or replace it according to my needs.

 

Legal? Yes.

Smart? Open for debate.

[MHISSTC]

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.

 

Spacers are open. +25mm offset should give you all kids of room since the mounting pad will be way out towards the outside edge of the wheel.

[MHISSTC]

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?

 

Wait.

 

I think I read that as submitted from Glenn, the TX Regional CMC Director, point of view instead of from Glenn, the individual CMC racer, point of view. That may conflict with your viewpoint of doing what's best for the series.

 

My bad.

[Glenn]

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.

 

Spacers are open. +25mm offset should give you all kids of room since the mounting pad will be way out towards the outside edge of the wheel.

 

Then we are back to folks upset that they use more spacer than platform x. Back to the same problem- splitting hairs over rotational mass.

[MHISSTC]

Then we are back to folks upset that they use more spacer than platform x. Back to the same problem- splitting hairs over rotational mass.

 

Which puts us back to the pre-Enkei RPF1 era of wheels. Since wheels seem to come in a standard selection of offsets (unless they are custom made), there's always been a difference in the amount of spacers used by the different platforms and I never saw an argument about it. It's just something that we may have complained about, accepted, and moved on.

 

I'm arguing for the sake of arguing now and not being very productive with regard to the RCR at hand. But it does show that someone will always come up with a question about the rules, or find some amount of gray area, and that at some point, we just have to accept it and also somehow discourage whatever it is that entices folks to try to operate in the gray area.

 

How about adding some kind of acknowledgement that the rules are a compromise, aren't going to be perfect for everyone, and any attempt to capitalize on gray areas is frowned upon. That might keep us from having to get more and more detailed with rule specifications as time goes on. Something like... "Some gray areas will always exist in the rules in the interest of keeping the rules as simple as possible. If racers choose to unnecessarily exploit those gray areas, the rules may be rewritten at any time to specifically remove those gray areas without regard to how that may negatively impact the racers who chose to operate there."

[soundguydave1548534741]

Here we go again...

 

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.

 

BUT, when you start talking about 1", 1-1/2" or MORE as could be required on some of the ford platforms to hit the max trackwidth spec, the added mass becomes non-trivial. Not BS, sorry.

 

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?

 

Thickness of the mounting flange is irrelevant. Both backspace and offset use the mating surface of the wheel as the cardinal point in measurement, whether they be OEM or aftermarket.

 

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.

 

In that, you're absolutely correct. A racer doesn't "need" to hit weight minimum. A racer doesn't "need" to hit power and torque maxes. A racer doesn't "need" to do a LOT of things that have impact on the performance of the car.

 

I use aluminum rear suspension parts. Do you? Should I be called a cheater because you don't?

 

For the record, yes, I do run aluminum lower control arms, but not uppers. Did you change YOUR upper control arms out? Oh, wait...

 

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.

 

Okay, now we come to the crux of the matter. If the rule's intent was for us to go out and have custom wheels fabricated, then this is a VERY clear departure from Section 2 (Intent), which puts us in a bit of a quandry. We now have two rules that directly conflict with each other. Logic would dictate that the broader rule would apply, however this is clearly not the case. For reference:

 

"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."

 

The above is quoted directly from the 2013v2 rule book, section 2, page 2 of the PDF version. Bold emphasis is mine.

 

This is the famous and oft-cited over-arching "cost containment" rule, but am I correct in interpreting your comment to mean that the wheel rules are exempt from this?

 

 

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.

 

Which means that the series, as well as the level of build is evolving. Time for the rules to evolve as well.

 

The cheaper we make this class, the more folks who want it to be cheaper to run. Surely you can understand this.

 

I certainly can. Cost containment was cited in a WIDE variety of discussion topics, ranging from differential covers, to coilovers, to adjustable spring perches, to transmissions, to entire engine families, to roll cage construction, to.... You get the idea. Now, however, it's revealed that the INTENT of a rule is to have the racers as a whole purchase custom-built wheels, and damn the cost. I'm all in favor of lowering operational and build costs, but custom wheels isn't a step forward in that direction at all.

 

 

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?

Bit of a straw-man argument there, but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, wording can be worked out, as long as the intent is clear. If you really want to push the issue, is it better to have ONE racer replace 16 wheels at $200 each, or have hundreds look down the barrel of replacing 16 wheels at $600 each?

 

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.

 

Yep, I get that. I didn't use the wing/shock rule, I used the wording to "minimize its impact w/a price cap" as you so eloquently put 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.

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.

 

I'm honestly not sure exactly how to take that statement, but I'll choose to take it as Scott has.

[Glenn]

BUT, when you start talking about 1", 1-1/2" or MORE as could be required on some of the ford platforms to hit the max trackwidth spec, the added mass becomes non-trivial. Not BS, sorry.

And what wheel needs this much spacer to get to max track?

 

Thickness of the mounting flange is irrelevant. Both backspace and offset use the mating surface of the wheel as the cardinal point in measurement, whether they be OEM or aftermarket.

Right, but re-read my comment. How thick is that flange from where the wheel touches the rotor to where the lugs seat? Not all are the same. This means more mass. Isn't that more mass centrally located? Some are going to be of differeing thickness. Some have a larger or smaller hole in the center where the wheel is centered.

 

 

In that, you're absolutely correct. A racer doesn't "need" to hit weight minimum. A racer doesn't "need" to hit power and torque maxes. A racer doesn't "need" to do a LOT of things that have impact on the performance of the car.

If I were you, I would start paying more attention to those other areas, 'cause this wheel issue aint a place that is going to win you any races.

 

For the record, yes, I do run aluminum lower control arms, but not uppers. Did you change YOUR upper control arms out? Oh, wait...

They sell GM's to anyone ya know. If its stopping you from winning, you likely will not win in a GM either.

 

If the rule's intent was for us to go out and have custom wheels fabricated, ........

It was intended to ALLOW them, not intended for you to "must have" them. Big difference.

 

Okay, now we come to the crux of the matter. If the rule's intent was for us to go out and have custom wheels fabricated, then this is a VERY clear departure from Section 2 (Intent), which puts us in a bit of a quandry. We now have two rules that directly conflict with each other. Logic would dictate that the broader rule would apply, however this is clearly not the case. For reference:

 

"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."

 

The above is quoted directly from the 2013v2 rule book, section 2, page 2 of the PDF version. Bold emphasis is mine.

 

This is the famous and oft-cited over-arching "cost containment" rule, but am I correct in interpreting your comment to mean that the wheel rules are exempt from this?

 

within boundaries intended to limit expenses

What is the dollar cut-off between limited expenses and unlimited expenses? Ask 100 people and you will likely get 100 different dollar amounts. Are you reading a number there that isn't printed for all to see? Or is it some GL/Midwest Centric interpretation I wasn't included in?

 

This level of racing is expensive for me. I know guys who race w/ us that consider this pocket change. From who's perspective is the rule accurate?

 

Which means that the series, as well as the level of build is evolving. Time for the rules to evolve as well.

And who is to say they aren't? Just because you don't get it 100% your way, doesn't mean it is not emough or wrong. I can assure you I'll not get it 100% my way. And for clarity, I'll not vote for any RCR I submit. Never have.

 

Cost containment was cited in a WIDE variety of discussion topics, ranging from differential covers, .....

And allowing something that isn't allowed that will have to be purchased reduces cost how?

Oh, you can't drain the fluid w/out pulling the cover?

Oh, allow drain/fill plugs to be welded into OEM covers, there - fixed!

Not good enough?

Oh, you just wanted the cover, the drain/fill excuse was just a means to an end.

 

No need for the covers, why allow it.

 

Now, however, it's revealed that the INTENT of a rule is to have the racers as a whole purchase custom-built wheels, and damn the cost.

Cleared that one up for ya above.

Intant was to ALLOW, not to REQUIRE. You gotta get that right going forward.

 

I'm all in favor of lowering operational and build costs, but custom wheels isn't a step forward in that direction at all.

Been in the rules for years. I can count on one hand w/ 4 fingers left over how many sets I have seen. And they were not any advantage I could tell. CCW's cut to fit a 3rd gen.

I beat that guy that year. Did it on 16" OEM 19lb wheels. Where 16lb is the minimum. F'me I'm a bad ass winning w/ wheels 3 lbs over the minimum. Thats 12lbs of friggin rotaional mass I was disadvantaged with. Instead of 1st, I should have been give 1/2 place ...... cause I'm a badass!

 

Bit of a straw-man argument there, but as I mentioned earlier in this thread, wording can be worked out, as long as the intent is clear. If you really want to push the issue, is it better to have ONE racer replace 16 wheels at $200 each, or have hundreds look down the barrel of replacing 16 wheels at $600 each?

Have at it. Maybee it's just me, but I think most racers are smart enough to know this will not put them farther up the finishing order. So I don't see a need to stop them. You seem to think so, so you better get in line. I know a guy that got Aaron the deal, but he can hook you up too. Just don't buy anything until the rules are released. Should be done in a few weeks.

 

Yep, I get that. I didn't use the wing/shock rule, I used the wording to "minimize its impact w/a price cap" as you so eloquently put it.

Then you gotta tell me how putting a price limit on wheels is gonna stop anything. If you reply w/ technical specs and data, then that is where the rules should focus. Cause even a $1000 price cap wouldn't stop the RPF1's from being legal w/ todays rules. Price ain't gonna stop it, so why traget the issue from that angle?

 

I'm honestly not sure exactly how to take that statement, but I'll choose to take it as Scott has.

Not one bit of consideration that what I submitted my be correct for the series because it isn't what you want. If what you want is correct, the other Directors will vote it in. No matter what I want. My bet is there will be ideas used from all RCR's and directors input combined.

[soundguydave1548534741]

Sweet Baby Jeebus, Glenn, you're completely misreading what I'm trying to say...

 

I'm not going to take this point-by-point, it's just too much effort, and I've tried before. If you want to do that, drop me a PM, and we'll take it off the board.

 

I'm SINCERELY not trying to piss you off, I'm attempting to have a rational debate about a subject that is a current hot-button in our little family. It's okay for people to disagree, it's okay to have conflicting viewpoints, EVEN WHEN both parties genuinely want the same eventual goal.

 

It's obvious that we've (again) gotten into launching barbed comments towards each other, and that has got to stop. I've NEVER called you a name, sworn at you, denigrated your opinion, called your driving abilities into question, or disrespected you in any way that I can recall. If I have, please point it out to me, and I will GLADLY apologize.

 

Please, in the future, conduct yourself in the same manner.

 

Now, I will patiently ask again how allowing custom wheels is consistent with section 2 of the rule book.

 

Perhaps I'm making an incorrect assumption, but I believe that the rules were written with a "theoretical perfect build" in mind, and have always operated from that belief.

 

Logically, IF you were to have two drivers of outstanding ability, in two identically prepared cars, then the margins of error determining victory would necessarily be small, to the point of statistical insignificance. "On any given Sunday," to borrow a phrase. At that point, if you should change something on ONE of the cars to give it even the tiniest of performance advantages, the implications of that change suddenly become large. Right there is the impetus behind BANNING custom wheels, as they DO provide that performance advantage over some other "street wheel" with a spacer.

 

Our goal as a driver is to BE that "driver of outstanding ability." Likewise, our goal in car preparation is to maximize the performance potential of the car we drive. In other series, notably Spec Miata, we've seen the front-running drivers spend THOUSANDS on a motor to attempt to gain an edge over each other. They literally dyno the car with a selection of different ECUs to see which provides one more horsepower. Based on the stated intent of our rule set, that is NOT the way the series is focused. At that point, however, assuming that everything else is maxed out, custom wheels become that "one more horsepower." THAT is the point where the custom wheel becomes a "must have" item. In other words, just one more way to spend money for a gain.

 

We're obviously split on what the wheel rule should be. I favor low-cost, easily obtained and replaced basic wheels, like 99% of the racers are currently running. To me, custom-built wheels simply don't fit with the "spirit of CMC."

[Glenn]

The single fix to SM is a HP cap. Then alot of that spending goes away.

 

By the way, I got some "custom" 2002 Camaro SS wheels for sale. Lighter than OEM SS wheels. Gonna need some $$$$ to part w/ them.

 

You never said why the "custom" wheels in your mythological story were better than the OEM wheels w/ spacers.

[MHISSTC]

Now, I will patiently ask again how allowing custom wheels is consistent with section 2 of the rule book.

 

Perhaps I'm making an incorrect assumption, but I believe that the rules were written with a "theoretical perfect build" in mind, and have always operated from that belief.

 

Allow me to speculate. I think custom/expensive/3-piece type wheels are allowed for the same reason Ford 9" rear ends are allowed when NO car in the series ever had one... ...they were grandfathered in during CMC's infancy when SCCA A-sedan cars where making the transition into the series and they've been here ever since.

 

If you want folks from another series to play in yours, you have to make it attractive to them. If those cars you want to attract already have custom built 9" rear ends and expensive $2000-$4000/set CCW 3-piece wheels installed, then you have to allow them to keep them and not force them to buy new equipment. The rule would have made it cheaper for those folks to participate in the series while absolutely no one who was building a new car for the series at the time would have seriously considered spending that kind of cash of a set of wheels. If I remember correctly, through the floor subframe connectors were also allowed at one point, but were eventually phased out. So why haven't the Ford 9" rears and expensive 3-piece wheels followed the same route? (Honestly, I can't remember if we still allow the Ford 9").

 

From my own personal collection of wheels (I have too many), I have a set of 16x8 CCW 3-piece and one set of 16x8.5 Kosei one-piece custom drilled blanks I purchased from a former A-Sedan racer. I'd love to be able to use either one of those sets along with my 12" brakes next year. Toyo's ability to produce 16" tires aside, I'm not sure either one of those will meet the rules. I *think* the Koseis are heavy enough, but bare and clean, they are close enough that I don't know and I haven't put them on a scale that is accurate to the 0.1 lb yet. If we include spacers in the wheel weight, then I'm positive they'll be OK. I'm pretty sure the CCWs are heavy enough, but you can't get that model any more (not currently/commercially available), and if you default back to the Manufacturer's suggested retail price when new and impose a price cap, they won't be legal. But, if you interpret 'currently/commercially available' to also mean what I can legitimately buy used off Ebay or from another racer looking to clean out his garage, then they should be legal.

 

I don't have the definitive answer on whether we should include or exclude custom made or expensive 3-piece wheels while there are still other cheaper options available. From a selfish perspective, I wish they were. From a realistic perspective, maybe it's time to remove the grandfather clause if that's actually the how and why of the wheel rule origin.

[D Algozine]

I think the effects of rotating mass are being minimalized incorrectly.

There are many racing engineers who have spent many hours and dollars on minimizing rotating mass.

 

According to the recent physics presented, an 8 pound difference per wheel is worth 1 HP. Not sure about that 1 HP number, but I gaurantee 8 lbs per wheel is huge advantage in rotating mass, and will result in a significant advantage. I think some more research/physics should be investigated further. I've read very different accounts about rotating mass and I've seen cars on the dyno make several more HP with wheels that were "a couple pounds lighter". And additional HP is not the only benifit.

 

Also, these benifits are significantly enhanced when the weight is removed from the perimeter vs center or overall

[Glenn]

I think the effects of rotating mass are being minimalized incorrectly.

There are many racing engineers who have spent many hours and dollars on minimizing rotating mass.

 

According to the recent physics presented, an 8 pound difference per wheel is worth 1 HP. Not sure about that 1 HP number, but I gaurantee 8 lbs per wheel is huge advantage in rotating mass, and will result in a significant advantage. I think some more research/physics should be investigated further. I've read very different accounts about rotating mass and I've seen cars on the dyno make several more HP with wheels that were "a couple pounds lighter". And additional HP is not the only benifit.

 

Also, these benifits are significantly enhanced when the weight is removed from the perimeter vs center or overall

 

Where did you see this 8lb example?

If it was my post, you may want to read it again.

[D Algozine]

I think the effects of rotating mass are being minimalized incorrectly.

There are many racing engineers who have spent many hours and dollars on minimizing rotating mass.

 

According to the recent physics presented, an 8 pound difference per wheel is worth 1 HP. Not sure about that 1 HP number, but I gaurantee 8 lbs per wheel is huge advantage in rotating mass, and will result in a significant advantage. I think some more research/physics should be investigated further. I've read very different accounts about rotating mass and I've seen cars on the dyno make several more HP with wheels that were "a couple pounds lighter". And additional HP is not the only benifit.

 

Also, these benifits are significantly enhanced when the weight is removed from the perimeter vs center or overall

 

Where did you see this 8lb example?

If it was my post, you may want to read it again.

 

Oops. Got that messed up

After re-reading, I'm still not clear

 

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.

 

The research I have done has resulted in conflicting information. (go figure) I've found a range of anywhere from 1:5 thru 1:20 listed as the ratio of wheel weight as it translates into sprung mass. Meaning 1 less pound of wheel weight is equal to 5 to 20 pounds of sprung weight.

That's perfect for this discussion. Now depending on what you believe you can pick what ever end of the spectrum best fits your argument.

 

There is a significant amount of information available on this subject. Huge amounts of resources have been spent to improve rotating mass. The benefits have been documented.

Some of the benefits of lower wheel mass (it all adds up):

Increase throttle response

Improved torque curve

Improved dampening capabilities

Less transfer of energy of uneven surfaces

Improved acceleration

 

If you think it doesn't matter much then go ahead race with 26lb wheels and let me know if you feel any negative effects compared to a 18lb wheel. It is very noticeable at 8lbs per wheel and obviously less noticeable at 2-4 lbs per wheel, but the effects are real.

If it didn't matter then there wouldn't be a rule to limit the minimum weight.

The wheel that Aaron came up with that has the majority of the mass located in the center greatly improves all the items listed above.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Guest

[D Algozine]

Question: (actually 2 part question)

If rotating mass is not critical and it is in fact insignificant....AND.....There is no way to effectively limit the amount of money some guys will spend on wheels (so we shouldn't even try)...............then why is there a rule limiting the minimum weight of wheels ? (getting my popcorn ready)

Glenn provided the inside as to how the rule was initially put together. It all made perfect sense to me, but now , apparently non of that logic exists.

What happened to the original intent of the rule? And while I have the floor, why did spacers become part of a wheel?

Ok that was more then one question. my bad..

Mostly rhetorical questions, so real answers aren't anticipated, just trying to make a point.

[CMC#11]

OK, why not make the spacer not part of the wheel but include it in the weight? There have been previous RCR's asking for the spacer weight to be included.

 

Then the Enkei's would be legal with the spacer Aaron used, and nobody would even have to do any extra work to alter the wheel. The wheel is no longer "custom" and is certainly not exotic with a purchase price under $1,000.

[Glenn]

The research I have done has resulted in conflicting information. (go figure) I've found a range of anywhere from 1:5 thru 1:20 listed as the ratio of wheel weight as it translates into sprung mass. Meaning 1 less pound of wheel weight is equal to 5 to 20 pounds of sprung weight.

 

So how does what Aaron did factor here? His wheel is still 18lb. Unsprung weight doesn't care if some is located on the outter or innerpartof the wheel. The only issue w/ what Aaron did was w/ regards to rotational mass and where that mass is located from the center.

Now, if your issue is w/ the 18lb limit and you have 19lb wheels, your right. But that part of the rule is not going to change. 18lb is the minimum. I think it will be corrected to read 18.0lbs.

 

 

If you think it doesn't matter much then go ahead race with 26lb wheels and let me know if you feel any negative effects compared to a 18lb wheel. It is very noticeable at 8lbs per wheel and obviously less noticeable at 2-4 lbs per wheel, but the effects are real.

If it didn't matter then there wouldn't be a rule to limit the minimum weight.

The wheel that Aaron came up with that has the majority of the mass located in the center greatly improves all the items listed above.

 

Sure - an 8 lb difference matters. Who is running 26lb wheels? And why? There are so many other options out there that are better than 26lb wheels. Run them if you got them, but don't ask fora rules change when 18lbs has been the number since day 1 for 17" wheels.

The 8lb example is like me telling you 5hp doesn't matter on track and you come back at me w/ saying "The you run w/ 20hp less and see if it matters!".

 

You gotta stop racing these cars on paper and race in real life. What are you gonna blame it on when your 100% max effort car doesn't win?

 

Aarons wheels has the majority of mass in the center? So out of 16lbs, we add 2 to the center and suddenly 8lbs of the wheel in the hub area? My bet is the barrel is over half of that 18lbs.

 

If rotating mass is not critical and it is in fact insignificant....

Didn't say this. Your making absolute statements. This is all about the relocation of mass (2 lbs of mass). Unsprung is unchanged - still 18lbs. But to the degree in which your worried about, it isn't anything that needs to be concerned w/. If the limit was set to 14lb wheels, then yes, I would feel disadvantaged w/ my 19lb wheels. As it stands, a difference in 1lb isn't of consern. If you don't have 18lb wheels and you feel you can't win w/out them, go buy them. I'm here to tell you that you will not win because of them either.

 

Who here can say which wheels that are accepted as legal under the intent have the same mass distribution and which ones are different? Which ones are good and which ones are bad?

[Boudy1548534717]

I'm SINCERELY not trying to piss you off, I'm attempting to have a rational debate about a subject that is a current hot-button in our little family. It's okay for people to disagree, it's okay to have conflicting viewpoints, EVEN WHEN both parties genuinely want the same goal.

 

Dave, then pick up the phone. Your stated goal can not possibly be reached in a forum, just can't be done. Continual effort will only result in further frustration and a broken keyboard.

 

Boudy

[suck fumes1548534743]

I say...stop the bitchin and drive the car! If you think to much or worry about what everyone else has you'll never win a race.

[D Algozine]

Last time, then I need to just walk away

 

NO ONE ELSE IN CMC HAS A PERFECT 18LB WHEEL.

Off the shelf , reasonably priced, readily available , non custom wheels with correct offset (no spacers), and weigh 18lbs, aren't available.

We all have 19-22 lbs wheels that need 1-2lb spacers. That is 2-6 lbs difference per wheel, over the once theoretical 18lb, and yes that does matter.

A loop hole allowed a perfect wheel, which has ideal center mass to become legal.

NO ONE ELSE HAS THAT, OR WANTS TO GO OUT AND GET THAT.

 

No one on this forum has used any of this BS as an excuse for not winning ? Where did that statement come from?

 

 

 

PS. I've raced this season and done pretty well, especially for the first time out in a new car. Do I get an official badge that allows me to have an opinion that matters?

[D Algozine]

I say...stop the bitchin and drive the car! If you think to much or worry about what everyone else has you'll never win a race.

 

Spoken like a true champion. ......What the f#&$ does this mean?

[suck fumes1548534743]

It means quit ranting about the wheel rule and let the cards fall where they may when the rules come out! All I'm saying is even if the rules don't play out the way you want them to then you can either suck it up and drive what you have or join the train. Whining about it isn't going to solve anything. Just gets on everyone's nerves.

[D Algozine]

It means quit ranting about the wheel rule and let the cards fall where they may when the rules come out!

 

FYI - Between this thread and the previous "Wheel weight" thread , there are 25 pages of comments and responses. Who are you directing this toward? Also, your name shows up on post list of both threads, as well.

[Glenn]

I am out.

[soundguydave1548534741]

Aaron, with respect, get over yourself. You ARE the CMC champion for 2013, and nobody is disputing that. You drove an outstanding race, with a well prepared car, and on that day, were better than any other competitor.

 

What the rest of us (and I haven't seen ANYBODY come out and say differently) are "bitching and whining about" is a clear variance between the written wheel rule and the series intent. What you did was clever, 100% legal (as ruled), and successful. However, combining a wheel and a spacer certainly isn't the intent of the wheel rule, DESPITE it being okayed in a forum thread about a rejected RCR, which was also unrelated, I may add.

 

What we're trying to do is bring out the point that "it just ain't right," not using it for an excuse for not being the champion. I'm pretty sure that I speak for the majority of the CMC racers out there when I say that I do NOT want to replace my wheel stock, nor do I think that making it pretty obvious that the "hot ticket" is custom wheels for any potential series entrants. That simply flies in the face of the whole "stock, cost-contained, low entry cost" concept of the series. If you disagree with my position, that's fine, but don't think that ANY of us are making personal attacks on you, or trying to get you DQ'd, or whatever you may be thinking we're doing.

 

The wheel rule is screwed right now, and all we're doing is using your wheels as a perfect example of what we DON'T want in the series. That's all.

 

Going essentially wide-open on wheels like some apparently are trying to do flies in the face of the balance of the rulebook. If there are major conceptual rule re-writes coming down the pipe that would be consistent with that "open" approach, then I think we all deserve to know about them as far in advance as possible. I'm talking about wholesale change of direction. If there aren't, which leans towards stability, then the wheel rule needs to be amended, and I'm sorry that you got caught in the crunch, but that IS the price you pay when you run at the very edge in the grey areas.

 

If none of us "whine" about rules we don't like, or don't think make sense, then this series will die a quick death. Racers are "type A" personalities, almost by definition, so to expect them to just "fall in line" is a bit of a myopic expectation.

 

Don't like what's being said, or have a different opinion? Fine. Explain your viewpoint, debate the topic on the merits, and feel free to attempt to sway "the opposition" to your viewpoint. What you've said here, is just a thinly veiled "shut up," and not much more.

[suck fumes1548534743]

Look I'm not trying to belittle anyone. I know it comes across that way behind a keyboard but I'm not trying to be an asshole. The only reason why I got pissy was because the custom wheel rule has been in the book for several years yet no one has had an issue with it until now. Is it because very few if any thought that anyone would buy them or use them? That why no one said anything about it, because it wasn't being used by anyone? I guess my issue is if I'm using a relatively cheap solution to what a "custom" wheel is, why the opposition? I completely understand that people could be upset due to the fact that it wasn't directly written in the rules even though it was stated to be legal in a memo online, but still, this is racing regardless of whether this is a budget friendly class (which I highly disagree with) or not and if I have permission I'm doing it. If I had shown up with a set of Fikse Profil 2's which I was about to do until someone told me a cheaper option, would anyone have had an issue with it?? All I can say is, it's not very appealing to anyone to run with CMC if a rule is changed or requested to be changed if a competitor shows up with something no one else has but yet is legal. Maybe I just have a different mind set than some of you because I come from a very competitive series with a LOT different way of thinking. Everyone I have known and became good friends with in the past shows up at the track to win which is also the way I am. Now I agree with y'all in the sense that I don't want to spend a crap load of money on wheels hence the Enkei idea. Honestly the only reason why I invested in those was because my car with me in it was 100pds over weight with little to no areas to shed that other than on my belly. But that wasn't as easy as I thought haha, which is why I bought those wheels.