Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: CMC 17" Wheel Weight & Welded Spacers

  1. #21
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Plano
    Posts
    1,763
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Suck fumes View Post
    yah sook make sure you get clarification on anything wheel related. I saved all Marshals approval messages on my phone when i took my setup to Utah at miller mot park just to cover my butt cause it created a firestorm online once people realized what i did to the wheels (marshals idea) to make weight. BUT itís the budget way around spending thousands in fikse or ccw wheels.
    Marshall-will you approve my aluminum rear diff cover? I'm not aware Marshall was ever a CMC director to my knowledge to give "approval"? I'm pointing this out more because I get uneasy about anything that needs an "approval" since it's likely pushing the intent of the rules or possibly worse.

    I agree with Tyler and any others that modding a wheel is a potential safety issue.

    Wheel weight rule just has a better benefit for the Mustangs with the Enkei wheel option unless there is a wheel under 18 lbs for the F-body that ins't over $2k for a set (though I sure like the looks of the CCW). There are all kinds of advantages/disadvantages for each platform.
    Sook-send it in for rule change request in our now non-existant silly season to get it approved to lower the wheel weight since it improves safety, lowers cost, and doesn't impact performance since people were already running the Enkei. Heck maybe you could get the rule changed before hand instead of a nod/wink approval.

    I also agree with DAlgozine that it seems to be a goofy loophole that shouldn't really be in CMC. But then I'm checking to see when my custom Ford 9" with aluminum center section is going to be delivered so I can get it installed before nationals because my aluminum diff cover with a drain plug is illegal. Just doesn't make sense to replace it with a stock cover when for $3,800 I can get a stronger diff, better posi, and nearly unlimited gear options. Only downside is I have to order a new pair of CCW's for the different bolt pattern.
    Bryan Leinart
    CMC #24

  2. #22
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby marshall_mosty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Posts
    3,264
    Quote Originally Posted by BryanL View Post
    Marshall-will you approve my aluminum rear diff cover? I'm not aware Marshall was ever a CMC director to my knowledge to give "approval"? I'm pointing this out more because I get uneasy about anything that needs an "approval" since it's likely pushing the intent of the rules or possibly worse.

    I agree with Tyler and any others that modding a wheel is a potential safety issue.

    Wheel weight rule just has a better benefit for the Mustangs with the Enkei wheel option unless there is a wheel under 18 lbs for the F-body that ins't over $2k for a set (though I sure like the looks of the CCW). There are all kinds of advantages/disadvantages for each platform.
    Sook-send it in for rule change request in our now non-existant silly season to get it approved to lower the wheel weight since it improves safety, lowers cost, and doesn't impact performance since people were already running the Enkei. Heck maybe you could get the rule changed before hand instead of a nod/wink approval.

    I also agree with DAlgozine that it seems to be a goofy loophole that shouldn't really be in CMC. But then I'm checking to see when my custom Ford 9" with aluminum center section is going to be delivered so I can get it installed before nationals because my aluminum diff cover with a drain plug is illegal. Just doesn't make sense to replace it with a stock cover when for $3,800 I can get a stronger diff, better posi, and nearly unlimited gear options. Only downside is I have to order a new pair of CCW's for the different bolt pattern.
    Bryan,
    When I'm not available to field AI questions, they defer to Michael. The inverse is true for CMC. In this case, I was also discussing with Michael at the same time since we typically talk several times per week anyway. The official "legal or not" doesn't even lie with me or Michael. It ultimately would sit with Al Fernandez and the National Office. Michael and I are simply ambassadors of the series and make the best call we can with the information provided. Obviously my discussions with Aaron were under the pretense that he executed the wheel modification exactly as we had discussed. If he had done anything outside of our documented conversation, the "approval" most likely would have no grounds for being upheld. NASA always has the ability to reach out to the series directors to point out if we are overstepping our authority. In this case, I didn't hear a peep and Aaron didn't have any issues with the wheels at Nationals.


    Clarification for pushing the limits of the rules are what continue to grow series, not in inverse. There are many examples of series that don't exist anymore due rulesets that are close ended with regards to future grown and or written with a ruleset that stifles innovation.

    I personally don't like it when people talk about the rules and then as a subset the "intent". If it was the intent to allow or not allow a particular modification, it needs to be clearly specified in the rules. For example, if a battery box per intent isn't supposed to be made out of 1/4" steel plate and put behind the roll cage, the rules need to a maximum weight for a battery box.. Looking at a battery box and saying it is illegal because it doesn't meet the intent of the rules is not a solid defense, IMHO. There are so many loopholes that can be closed with clarified rules. If the series is seeing rules creep with a particular item (wheels plus spacers), the rules can be changed to clearly set the allowed parameters for the wheels.
    Marshall Mosty
    AI/SI Texas Regional Director
    2011 NASA-TX American Iron Champ
    AI #67 "Mosty Brothers' Racing" (RIP)

  3. #23
    Senior Member Grass-Passer Suck fumes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Austin, Tx
    Posts
    865
    Couldn’t have said it any better Marshall. I have always thought the whole “intent” thing was kind of odd because this was the only class I have ever raced in where I have heard arguments about “intent” of the rule. Rules need to be clearly written and spelled out. If they are not then they can be creatively interpreted by anyone. But saying that it doesn’t meet the “intent” is not a strong argument at all.
    ďA man with no enemies is a man with no character.Ē
    ― Paul Newman

  4. #24
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby marshall_mosty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Posts
    3,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Suck fumes View Post
    Couldn’t have said it any better Marshall. I have always thought the whole “intent” thing was kind of odd because this was the only class I have ever raced in where I have heard arguments about “intent” of the rule. Rules need to be clearly written and spelled out. If they are not then they can be creatively interpreted by anyone. But saying that it doesn’t meet the “intent” is not a strong argument at all.
    In Aerospace, we use the "Shall"/"Should" argument.
    Shall is a direct requirement that will be followed (written rule)
    Should is a "it would be nice to comply, but not required" (intent)

    http://asq.org/standards-shall-should
    Marshall Mosty
    AI/SI Texas Regional Director
    2011 NASA-TX American Iron Champ
    AI #67 "Mosty Brothers' Racing" (RIP)

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by marshall_mosty View Post
    In Aerospace, we use the "Shall"/"Should" argument.
    Shall is a direct requirement that will be followed (written rule)
    Should is a "it would be nice to comply, but not required" (intent)

    http://asq.org/standards-shall-should
    We should include the intent of each rule in the rule book then. We can then change the name to the great book of guidelines - CMC edition.

    We do the shall/should thing at my job as well, I personally don't like it. Why include shoulds from a cost saving perspective? All the shoulds that we purse really should be shalls.

    Where do I go to formally request clarification? I have a question about another rule in preparation for nationals.

    - Josh
    CMC #50

  6. #26
    Senior Member Carroll Shelby marshall_mosty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Posts
    3,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Sook View Post
    Where do I go to formally request clarification? I have a question about another rule in preparation for nationals.
    Josh,
    Start with Michael. If you can't get Michael, send it to me. If we cannot provide guidance we will take it to Al F. He will take it to the National office, if needed.
    Marshall Mosty
    AI/SI Texas Regional Director
    2011 NASA-TX American Iron Champ
    AI #67 "Mosty Brothers' Racing" (RIP)

  7. #27
    Senior Member Grass-Passer Supercharged111's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    755
    Quote Originally Posted by Sook View Post
    We should include the intent of each rule in the rule book then. We can then change the name to the great book of guidelines - CMC edition.

    We do the shall/should thing at my job as well, I personally don't like it. Why include shoulds from a cost saving perspective? All the shoulds that we purse really should be shalls.

    Where do I go to formally request clarification? I have a question about another rule in preparation for nationals.

    - Josh
    Ideally the short answer should come from Al. The long answer should then appear as a rule change.
    RM CMC Director

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •