At 06:24 PM 7/6/01 -0700, Travis Lane wrote:
>I recently test drove a Miata and MR2 and found them to be quite different,
>but decided the MR2 would be better suited to myself as a street car. I felt
>that the biggest problem was lack of LSD, but I think extreme smoothness will
>lessen the disadvantage. Can anyone provide insight into the viability of
the
>MR2 in CS - Class 4 next year?
>
>Also, the MR2 comes with 15x6.6 (yep, that's six-point-six) inch wide wheels
>in the back and I'd like to find legal, lighter aftermarket wheels, but the
>6.6 may make that difficult. This is the closest related ruling I see:
>
>13.4 Wheels
>Vehicles equipped with rims having metric specifications may use alternate
>rims as determined by using the following procedure.
>
>Width: converting the metric measurement to inches and using the nearest
>smaller 1/2-inch width rim. Offset and track must still comply with the
>requirements of this section.
>
>Can anyone tell me if, say, 6.5" would be legal, or shall I start my letter
>to HQ?
>
>
Travis,
If the spec is 6.6 inches, that is not metric. It is simply a "decimal"
presentation of the inch system, just like 6.5 inches. However, if the spec
is 168 millimeters which happens to convert to 6.6 inches then the rule
could not be any clearer. 6.5 inches would be legal. I believe, by the way
that this all started when Michelin had a tire construction (TRX??) which
required a metric size wheel diameter in the late 70's or early 80's maybe.
Came on some cars such as some Mustangs. Tire size never caught on so SCCA
provided some "relief" since not only were alternate wheels hard to find,
tire choice was "rather limited".
Dick Rasmussen
CM 85
85 Van Diemen RF-85 Formula Ford
/// autox@autox.team.net mailing list
///
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe autox
///
|