Rules question on wheel spacers ?????

[GKR_17]

One could argue...

No, that's not a spacer, it's part of a 2 (or more) piece wheel... assuming it uses the standard hub to attach the entire assembly to the car. The center portion of a 3 piece wheel is nearly identical in function to the part in question, and is perfectly legal.

Grafton

[Greg Amy]

"Wheel spacer – A plate of unspecified thickness or material..."[/b]

Need I say more, Mister "spherical bearings are bushings because the material is free and air and steel and bearings can be considered material"? Be careful of all rules from now on where "material" is free...!

BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!


(I know you didn't argue that point, but I just COULD NOT resist...thanks for the setup!)

[Andy Bettencourt]

One could argue...

No, that's not a spacer, it's part of a 2 (or more) piece wheel... assuming it uses the standard hub to attach the entire assembly to the car. The center portion of a 3 piece wheel is nearly identical in function to the part in question, and is perfectly legal.

Grafton [/b]

I don't see how when you undo the lug nuts to remove the wheel/tire, that your spacer/hub adapter comes off with it. It must be PART of the wheel to be considered a piece, no? Can't see that leap.

If you are gonna actually do this, you would have to bolt the 'spacers' on with the factory lugs - and then bolt the wheel to the 'spacer' that had new lugs with your new bolt pattern in it. How else could it work?

AB

[Knestis]

I could use offset wheel spacers to change the relative lower control arm angle. Yeah - that's the ticket

Kirk (clown car) Knestis

[SilverHorseRacing]

I'm sorry, but I just have to chime in on this....

You are going to argue that using a wheel adapter to get the offset correct is illegal and that you'd rather see someone race with a spacer or have to go to a custom made wheel when a factory wheel correctly applied will work just fine?

It must really be snowing a lot right now for you guys to be this worried about stuff like that.

Any stud is legal, any lug nut is legal, and the wheel spacer can be made from any material. There is no limit given since you have now allowed the three components of an adapter on the car. Since it does not modify the rotor / hat assembly, and since the wheel does not protrude from vertical looking down, I'd say bring on the protests.

And as to the changing pattern issue.... since wheels are close to free (except no carbon), bolt patterns are also free. I'd even argue that if you drilled new holes for new studs, you could modify the bolt pattern that way, but I don't see the advantage to doing that, unless you are trying to save your wheel investment from a prior race car.

Like was mentioned earlier, the expensive solution would be to weld the adapter ring to the wheel, and use ARP long studs to pick it up with. The adapter is now just a part of the wheel, and the stud is legal, so all you have done is made a simple process more difficult, not changed a damn thing with regards to what can or cannot be done.

Why are there so many discussions here of stuff of this nature? When a guy shows up with twin turbos and an IRS in a stick axle car, let's talk. This pointless and endless "would you protest this?" stuff has made it so that short of checking in for rules updates and the for sale section, I harldy even ever want to read this anymore. If I wanted to race in showroom stock, I'd be checking the SS forums....

<-- Been racing with factory Focus wheels with adapters for 7 years. (Escort wheels before Focus wheels were available)

[Andy Bettencourt]

We are talking about it because Fred asked!

"Any wheel stud is permitted". Does that mean you can ADD studs? No way IMHO. It means that you can REPLACE your studs.

"Any lug nut is permitted". Does that mean you can ADD lug nuts? See above.

The core of what we are debating here is what a spacer is. There is no way that you will convince me that something that is DEFINED in the glossery - and permitted to be any material - can do anything BUT WHAT IT SAYS IT CAN DO in the glossery.

We aren&#39;t talking about performance advantages here or why someone would actually do this...but the legality of it. The bottom line for me? An adapter that changes factory lug patterns/quantities is simply not a:

Wheel spacer – A plate of unspecified thickness or material which is mounted between the road wheel and hub to increase the distance from the inside of the wheel and hub. Thereby increasing track.

It seems to me that not only is a specers defined here - but so is it&#39;s use. Nothing more.

[pfcs]

Marcello-I agree with you strongly. I cannot imagine why such topics beget such discussion. You&#39;d think people would have better things to do with their lives!

[Knestis]

Better than follow the rules as they are written?

Like it or not, we are stuck with the words and sentences in the rulebook, the way they are written. The question - over, and over, and OVER again - is whether we interpret those words and sentences literally, the way some group might, or even the way a single individual chooses to serve his own interests.

The ONLY way that we can have any consistency (and I&#39;m arguing from the presumption that we want rules enforcement to be regular, predictable, and repeatable from region to region and event to event, above all), then the safest route is to go literalist. It just doesn&#39;t matter, as long as we are all following the same regulations.

If someone wants a "spacer" to serve the purpose accomplished by the thing that we talk about as an "adapter," then the rule needs to say "spacer and/or adapter."

I&#39;m not arguing that it isn&#39;t completely reasonable to allow adapters, but the rule doesn&#39;t say that. If you don&#39;t like the letter of the law, propose that it be changed.

K

[Bill Miller]

Perhaps more importantly, I&#39;ve never seen an adapter I would race on. Snap!
[/b]

DING DING DING! We have a winner!!!

[SilverHorseRacing]

Better than follow the rules as they are written?

I&#39;m not arguing that it isn&#39;t completely reasonable to allow adapters, but the rule doesn&#39;t say that. If you don&#39;t like the letter of the law, propose that it be changed.

K
[/b]

Kirk,

I understand the whole concept of level field of play and letter of the law, but...

1) The rule book you would have us work under would be as thick as the whole 2006 book, just for the IT specs. There is no way in hell every conceivable variation / idea can be hashed out when you put it to a bunch of racers, who by their very nature, are going to look for loopholes and things they can use to their advantage in said rulebook.

2) While I might be inclined to write a letter to my congressman to stop eminent domain abuse, the odds of me writing a letter to get a clarification or wording change in an already over-complicated rulebook are about nil. In my opinion, the open nature of the rules is what lets the creative driver / owners come up with things that make look at it and go, "Why didn&#39;t I think of that?" If I wanted to run in a spec class, there are many options available to me to do so. I don&#39;t really want to, so I race here.

3) Again, everybody would like to say we&#39;re just clarifying a definition here, but in reality, the end result is a more expensive race car since instead of a 50.00 set of factory wheels (yeah, that&#39;s 50.00 for all 4) I have to go spend 200+ each for custom wheels since nobody makes a direct fit for my application anymore. And I&#39;m sure I&#39;m not alone in this due to the 6" rule in ITB. 6.5" we&#39;d be cool, although limited, but at 6", you&#39;re kind of out of luck.


As to a "safe" adapter... I made ours out of 7076-T6 Aluminum billet and used ARP studs for the wheels. Inspected regularly, just like our wheels are, and torqued in the same manner, I see no reason why you can&#39;t run them, especially given the minimal G-force loading you are going to get in an IT car. You might make the argument on a full-out Indy car to me, but in IT... like I said, all these years, never had a failure, and I don&#39;t attribute it to just luck. Even when I was hit in the wheels, the wheels were damaged, not the adapters.

[Joe Harlan]

Kirk,

I understand the whole concept of level field of play and letter of the law, but...

1) The rule book you would have us work under would be as thick as the whole 2006 book, just for the IT specs. There is no way in hell every conceivable variation / idea can be hashed out when you put it to a bunch of racers, who by their very nature, are going to look for loopholes and things they can use to their advantage in said rulebook.

2) While I might be inclined to write a letter to my congressman to stop eminent domain abuse, the odds of me writing a letter to get a clarification or wording change in an already over-complicated rulebook are about nil. In my opinion, the open nature of the rules is what lets the creative driver / owners come up with things that make look at it and go, "Why didn&#39;t I think of that?" If I wanted to run in a spec class, there are many options available to me to do so. I don&#39;t really want to, so I race here.

3) Again, everybody would like to say we&#39;re just clarifying a definition here, but in reality, the end result is a more expensive race car since instead of a 50.00 set of factory wheels (yeah, that&#39;s 50.00 for all 4) I have to go spend 200+ each for custom wheels since nobody makes a direct fit for my application anymore. And I&#39;m sure I&#39;m not alone in this due to the 6" rule in ITB. 6.5" we&#39;d be cool, although limited, but at 6", you&#39;re kind of out of luck.
As to a "safe" adapter... I made ours out of 7076-T6 Aluminum billet and used ARP studs for the wheels. Inspected regularly, just like our wheels are, and torqued in the same manner, I see no reason why you can&#39;t run them, especially given the minimal G-force loading you are going to get in an IT car. You might make the argument on a full-out Indy car to me, but in IT... like I said, all these years, never had a failure, and I don&#39;t attribute it to just luck. Even when I was hit in the wheels, the wheels were damaged, not the adapters.
[/b]

Key words here boys. Adapter is not legal and if I protest this that is how I will write the protest. The rule allows spacing it says nothing about adapting. Common sense application of the rules. If you want adapters write a letter and ask for them. My feeling is the downside to them is the car that gets hit by your loosewheel.

[bldn10]

Like I said in another, similar thread, the reason I continue these discussion is to try to wean people away from interpretations like Marcello&#39;s to the effect that free material basically means you can change the design charateristics too. When a rule says regarding a certain component that X is free, the converse implication is that X is the only thing that can be changed pursuant to that rule.

[lateapex911]

Kirk,

I understand the whole concept of level field of play and letter of the law, but...

1) The rule book you would have us work under would be as thick as the whole 2006 book, just for the IT specs. There is no way in hell every conceivable variation / idea can be hashed out when you put it to a bunch of racers, who by their very nature, are going to look for loopholes and things they can use to their advantage in said rulebook.
[/b]

No, it wouldn&#39;t be any thicker at all!. See, the rule is clear here. It&#39;s an adapter that you have, but the rule allows spacers. Right up front, the book says "If it does&#39;t say you can, then you can&#39;t".

Period. Simple. NOT a loophole, NOT a creative interpretation. Not a variation.

2) While I might be inclined to write a letter to my congressman to stop eminent domain abuse, the odds of me writing a letter to get a clarification or wording change in an already over-complicated rulebook are about nil. In my opinion, the open nature of the rules is what lets the creative driver / owners come up with things that make look at it and go, "Why didn&#39;t I think of that?" If I wanted to run in a spec class, there are many options available to me to do so. I don&#39;t really want to, so I race here.[/b]

You&#39;re polishing this one, sorry to say. Again, there are great examples of ingenious solutions, but this aint one of them. If you want to run an adapter, write the letter. If it&#39;s in the best interest of the category, then you may get a favorable result. Otherwise, it is NOT legal.

3) Again, everybody would like to say we&#39;re just clarifying a definition here, but in reality, the end result is a more expensive race car since instead of a 50.00 set of factory wheels (yeah, that&#39;s 50.00 for all 4) I have to go spend 200+ each for custom wheels since nobody makes a direct fit for my application anymore. And I&#39;m sure I&#39;m not alone in this due to the 6" rule in ITB. 6.5" we&#39;d be cool, although limited, but at 6", you&#39;re kind of out of luck.[/b]

This is a dengerous precedent for choosing to do something illegal. Remeber, when you chose to race your car, you did so knowing the cars strengths and weaknesses, and the rulebook was public information. you had the chance to do due diligence. You make your choices, and you have to live with those. Can&#39;t have your cake and eat it too. If you want the class to run 6.5" wheels, write a letter. If it&#39;s in the best interest of the category, then you may get a favorable result.

The "It&#39;s Ok because it&#39;s cheaper" excuse/reason doesn&#39;t cut it when guys start installing high comp pistons as a cheap way to power rather than a proper build. It is more than a slippery slope, it&#39;s a black diamond trail at that pont. Sure, you can say "But I didn&#39;t do that! MY mod gives no performance advantage", but I guarantee that&#39;s what every guy who does it says. The guys who protest high comp pistons think otherwise.

Listen, run your adapters if you like, and don&#39;t lose any sleep about me protesting you, but lets not kid ourselves here about it being a "neat solution" to an open rule. If you want to be legal, AND run the adapters then write a well reasoned letter.

[SilverHorseRacing]

And once again you guys are taking what is supposed to be a fun, entry-level class of racing, and turning it into IMSA Prototype cars - as in you will push the cost of being competitive to the point that you will eliminate the competition. Please don&#39;t try and argue this isn&#39;t one of those cases, because even above it is mentioned how to work around your definition just by substituting aluminum welding for studs and nuts. Did it change anything? Nope, and it would even meet your definition of legal...

Writing the paper I&#39;m sure would get the clarification in my favor. I might just do this if I get bored because I&#39;m sick of this crap here. I&#39;ve written in before for classifications of cars, so why not...oh yeah... because it&#39;s more fun to sit around and argue on the Internet...

AS to my calling it an adapter... I&#39;m sorry for trying to make the discussion clear. I will flip it back to you Joe... please explain what is being "Adapted" by the spacer I have. The Ford Mustang has a FACTORY 15x7 4x4.25 B.C wheel with the proper offset, the Ford Escort and Focus both use a FACTORY 15x6 4x4.25 BC wheel with the INCORRECT offset. The piece I use does not change anything with regards to bolt circle, number of attaching points, bearing / hub arrangement, etc. It only spaces the wheel out to clear suspension components so that I don&#39;t run an ILLEGAL wheel that comes STOCK on my car. Nowhere in the definition of the spacer in the GCR does it state that it cannot have holes in it greater than the number of studs coming from the hub side of the vehicle. Those extra holes go right to rule:

7.5 specifically states, "ANY (emphasis mine) wheel stud, bolt, and OR nut is permitted."

Whatever. If it says ANY, it means ANY. ANY WHEEL (within the dimensions allowed), ANY stud(s), bolt(s), or nut(s). My car happens to carry an extra 16 studs and nuts of each on board in race trim, and my read is that I am legal to do so. Hell, you could BOLT or weld a cage into a car, but you&#39;re going to argue that bolting is not sufficiently safe when it comes to the wheel? care to expound on the clamping loads generated or the deflection forces that would be required to separate my wheel from my spadapter (I like that...) ?? I&#39;m curious as to which you feel will fail first, my wheel, or my spadapter? BTW, if you care to do the math, I run 105 lb./ft. of torque on both sides, and the nominal diameter is 6". Center bore area missing is roughly 2", so you can eliminate that from your load calculations.

It&#39;s late, I&#39;m tired, and I&#39;m really not up for this little sparring match. It&#39;s obvious that I read the rules looking for ways to make an affordable, fun, safe race car, and that my read of the rules differs from some of yours in certain areas. While I can understand your position, I do not agree with it, and will leave it at that.

Feel free to protest my car for this, or any of the other interpretations of the rules you feel I am not in compliance with. I&#39;ve been down that road before, and when the dust settles and you&#39;ve done nothing but waste people&#39;s time with the meaning of the word "is", the car will still be legal, and you&#39;ll still be wondering how anyone with at least a sixth-grade education might read something and come away with a different conclusion than you did.

"Please check all your large baggage, and CREATIVITY at the door..."

My apologies go out to anyone who reads this thread and wonders when in the hell do we have any time to actually race our cars when we are so busy getting legal counsel ala F1 to resolve our lack of ability to agree on anything.

[mustanghammer]

I&#39;m gald someone asked this question. When the debate to move 1st Gen RX7&#39;s to ITB was ragging one of the things that I looked into where lug pattern adapters because this kind of a reclassification would require new 6" wheels. The pattern to have would be 4x100 so that Miata and VW wheels could be used. I also looked into Wide Five adapters and 15x6" wheels.

As far as adapters and spacers being safe? I used Aluminum Wide Five adapters on my Solo II Mustang for 12 years without failure. This allowed me to adapt the factory 4 lug patter to the 10.75" W5 pattern and buy "cheaper" 16x12" wheels.

If you Google "wheel adapters" or "wheel spacers"you will see a number of companies that offer this kind of service. Most of the applications are for 1 ton dually truck conversions but I have also seen circle track applications manufactured by Coleman Machine. A year or so ago I ran across an adapter on EBay that would change my 4x110 pattern to 4x114.5 so that GSLSE wheels could be used.

The bottom line is that a properly made adapter that gives me the ability to run a wheel with a more common lug pattern would be very attractive. However, I would like to see wording that clarifies this in the ITCS.

[Joe Harlan]

And once again you guys are taking what is supposed to be a fun, entry-level class of racing, and turning it into IMSA Prototype cars - as in you will push the cost of being competitive to the point that you will eliminate the competition. Please don&#39;t try and argue this isn&#39;t one of those cases, because even above it is mentioned how to work around your definition just by substituting aluminum welding for studs and nuts. Did it change anything? Nope, and it would even meet your definition of legal...

Writing the paper I&#39;m sure would get the clarification in my favor. I might just do this if I get bored because I&#39;m sick of this crap here. I&#39;ve written in before for classifications of cars, so why not...oh yeah... because it&#39;s more fun to sit around and argue on the Internet...

AS to my calling it an adapter... I&#39;m sorry for trying to make the discussion clear. I will flip it back to you Joe... please explain what is being "Adapted" by the spacer I have. The Ford Mustang has a FACTORY 15x7 4x4.25 B.C wheel with the proper offset, the Ford Escort and Focus both use a FACTORY 15x6 4x4.25 BC wheel with the INCORRECT offset. The piece I use does not change anything with regards to bolt circle, number of attaching points, bearing / hub arrangement, etc. It only spaces the wheel out to clear suspension components so that I don&#39;t run an ILLEGAL wheel that comes STOCK on my car. Nowhere in the definition of the spacer in the GCR does it state that it cannot have holes in it greater than the number of studs coming from the hub side of the vehicle. Those extra holes go right to rule:

7.5 specifically states, "ANY (emphasis mine) wheel stud, bolt, and OR nut is permitted."

Whatever. If it says ANY, it means ANY. ANY WHEEL (within the dimensions allowed), ANY stud(s), bolt(s), or nut(s). My car happens to carry an extra 16 studs and nuts of each on board in race trim, and my read is that I am legal to do so. Hell, you could BOLT or weld a cage into a car, but you&#39;re going to argue that bolting is not sufficiently safe when it comes to the wheel? care to expound on the clamping loads generated or the deflection forces that would be required to separate my wheel from my spadapter (I like that...) ?? I&#39;m curious as to which you feel will fail first, my wheel, or my spadapter? BTW, if you care to do the math, I run 105 lb./ft. of torque on both sides, and the nominal diameter is 6". Center bore area missing is roughly 2", so you can eliminate that from your load calculations.

It&#39;s late, I&#39;m tired, and I&#39;m really not up for this little sparring match. It&#39;s obvious that I read the rules looking for ways to make an affordable, fun, safe race car, and that my read of the rules differs from some of yours in certain areas. While I can understand your position, I do not agree with it, and will leave it at that.

Feel free to protest my car for this, or any of the other interpretations of the rules you feel I am not in compliance with. I&#39;ve been down that road before, and when the dust settles and you&#39;ve done nothing but waste people&#39;s time with the meaning of the word "is", the car will still be legal, and you&#39;ll still be wondering how anyone with at least a sixth-grade education might read something and come away with a different conclusion than you did.

"Please check all your large baggage, and CREATIVITY at the door..."

My apologies go out to anyone who reads this thread and wonders when in the hell do we have any time to actually race our cars when we are so busy getting legal counsel ala F1 to resolve our lack of ability to agree on anything.
[/b]

Your original post is slighty confusing to start but lets try this.

What I was responding to as not only you. If you Adapt from 114.3 to 110mm you are adapting. If you us an adapter that bolts to the hub and then the wheel bolts to the adapter you are still using an adapter. True studs are free for replacement but the number of studs must remain the same. there is nothing taht say you can now have 8 studs in a 4 bolt application. Lastly adapters may be fine for Autocross but in autocross you will never still the long periods of high g-loads you see in a RR situation. Personally I could care less until your wheel falls off and causes me an issue. One of the things we did for wheel spacers on the T2 car before they changed the rule was to drill and counter sink the spacer and bolt it directly to the wheel so the spacer would stay part of the wheel.

[mustanghammer]

Your original post is slighty confusing to start but lets try this.

What I was responding to as not only you. If you Adapt from 114.3 to 110mm you are adapting. If you us an adapter that bolts to the hub and then the wheel bolts to the adapter you are still using an adapter. True studs are free for replacement but the number of studs must remain the same. there is nothing taht say you can now have 8 studs in a 4 bolt application. Lastly adapters may be fine for Autocross but in autocross you will never still the long periods of high g-loads you see in a RR situation. Personally I could care less until your wheel falls off and causes me an issue. One of the things we did for wheel spacers on the T2 car before they changed the rule was to drill and counter sink the spacer and bolt it directly to the wheel so the spacer would stay part of the wheel.
[/b]

I don&#39;t disagree with you because I don&#39;t think rules concerning lug nuts, wheels and spacers support an adapter.

As far as Solo II and wheel spacers, well I guess I don&#39;t agree completely there. True a 45-60 second trip through the cones is not like a 20-45 minute race. However, I haven&#39;t raced on a track that was was rough or as alternately sticky and slick as the Salina Metro airport site was in 1995. It was so bad that my Mustang shattered a left front OE hub sending the wheel/tire and what was left of the rotor into a worker station. Allot of wheel failures happened at Salina and later at Topeka. Nothing like good ol&#39; WWII vintage concrete. Anyway, this is a debate for another time

What about simply redrilling the axle flange and front hub? Same number of lug nuts and lug studs just arranged in a different pattern?

[Joe Harlan]

I don&#39;t disagree with you because I don&#39;t think rules concerning lug nuts, wheels and spacers support an adapter.

As far as Solo II and wheel spacers, well I guess I don&#39;t agree completely there. True a 45-60 second trip through the cones is not like a 20-45 minute race. However, I haven&#39;t raced on a track that was was rough or as alternately sticky and slick as the Salina Metro airport site was in 1995. It was so bad that my Mustang shattered a left front OE hub sending the wheel/tire and what was left of the rotor into a worker station. Allot of wheel failures happened at Salina and later at Topeka. Nothing like good ol&#39; WWII vintage concrete. Anyway, this is a debate for another time

What about simply redrilling the axle flange and front hub? Same number of lug nuts and lug studs just arranged in a different pattern?
[/b]

I seriously think that to start machining parts is well beyond the scope of IT. Again none of this makes a big difference to me other than its not legal and if done by some hack it is likely unsafe.