SCCA/NASA Solo wheel size question

I am asking here because I have already read the rules and the patent office has tainted how I look at things and you guys are almost always quick to respond.

SCCA Solo Stock rules say:

Any type wheel may be used provided it complies with the following:
A. It is the same width as standard and as installed it does not have an offset more than ±7.00 mm (±0.275”) from a standard wheel for the car. The resultant change in track dimensions is allowed.
B. Wheel (rim) diameter may be increased or decreased 1” from the standard part.

Say a car like the Honda Accord. It is available from the cheap 6.5Jx16 ET55 to the nice trims being at 9Jx20 ET45

So I can interpret this two ways as it is written. The first is a 9" width on a wheel from 15" to 21" OR 6.5Jx(16+/-1) and 9Jx(20+/-1)

By the rules, what is the consistent legal interpretation?

I would say, width of any wheel available from the factory. So, 6.5s or 9s.

And any diameter, +-1", of any wheel available from the factory. So, 15"-17" and 19"-21", but you couldn't run 18s.

In reply to Toyman01:

I didn't post all the sizes just the extremes.

The Accord is available in 16", 17", 18", 19" and 20" from the factory.

Factory widths are 6.5, 7.5, 8, and 9" (That is why I picked it, large spread of tire and wheel sizes)

So by the way you wrote your response, I could run a 9" wide 15" diameter wheel

The wheel has to be available on the particular trim package of your car - no buying a stripper base model and putting on the top of the line 20s. However, if all of the sizes you've listed are in fact available as a factory option on the trim package in question, then yes, your interpretation is correct.

Hang on - I take that back. The diameter and width are "connected". If there are 19x9 wheels available, you could run an 18x9 or 20x9, but you can't mix and match diameter and width.

cmcgregor wrote: Hang on - I take that back. The diameter and width are "connected". If there are 19x9 wheels available, you could run an 18x9 or 20x9, but you can't mix and match diameter and width.

Now you are getting to the crux of the issue. The way it is written it can be interpreted either way.

In patent world, I would give it a 35 USC 112 (b) rejection as indefinite. I don't think SCCA would appreciate that.

I was curious as to what is the consistent interpretation of the rules.

I see what you're saying. But I think what's important is item B - there is no standard 16x9, so you can't run a 15x9.

So far as I know, that's the generally accepted interpretation of the rules, but then again, I run in STS, so what do I know haha

In reply to cmcgregor:

LOL

So does do we have any SCCA/NASA showroom competitors or tech inspectors here?

A. and B. refer to the same wheel. +/- 1" diameter, same width as the original wheel. So if it came with 15 x 7s or 19 x 9s, you could run 14-16 x 7 or 18-20 x 9.

And remember you can't cross trim levels. If a certain size wheel was only available on a certain trim level, you have to run the options originally associated with that trim level.

In reply to JG Pasterjak:

Thanks

Maybe I should write a rule revision to keep them from running into any smart asses like me.

Any type wheel may be used provided it complies with the following:

B. Wheel (rim) diameter may be increased or decreased 1” from the OEM wheel referenced in section A.

There that should do it. Some cars today have 3 wheel options for the same trim and varying width. Clarification is needed.

Section B is already appropriately clear IMO. The wording specifies "the" standard part, not "a" standard part. Taken together with section A you end up with "same width as a standard wheel", and +/- 1" diameter of that same standard wheel.

Where I DO think there is ambiguity is in the offset constraint wording. As written it could be interpreted that offset can be +/- 7mm of ANY standard wheel. There is no clear constraining clause for offset in the rule as there is for diameter.

Seems like it would be simple to clarify. Create section C that says wheel offset must be within +/- 7mm of the standard part (like for diameter).

because standard part is not referenced in any way in section A it makes it indefinite

Flight Service wrote: because standard part is not referenced in any way in section A it makes it indefinite

Um, yes it is:

"A. It is the same width as standard"

You also have to take into account the definition of standard part as provided in the rule book:

standard part An item of standard or optional equipment that could have been ordered with the car, installed on the factory production line, and delivered through a dealer in the United States. Port-installed options provided by the manufacturer are considered to be the same as those installed on the factory production line. Dealer-installed options or dele- tions (except as required by factory directives), no matter how common or what their origin, are not included in this definition. This definition does not allow the updating or backdating of parts.

CLH wrote: Um, yes it is: "A. It is the same width as standard"

"A. It is the same width as standard and as installed it does not have an offset more than ±7.00 mm (±0.275”) from a standard wheel for the car. The resultant change in track dimensions is allowed. "

I promise I am not trying to be a dick here, but this is the best way I can clarify my point.

Please highlight the word "part" in those sentences.

That is my point there isn't a consistent reference across the rule to the wheels. The words "standard", "standard wheel", and "standard part" are all used in section A & B. Are they referring to the same thing? (I understand from JG they are.) It is a very poorly worded rule. No one should have to go digging around to get what is allowed or not allowed for a wheel.

Even with the understanding of the rules description of a "standard part" because of the mixed words used in reference, it still isn't clear if it is referring to the same thing or a different one.

I think "as installed" answers the question. The deviations apply from what was on the car, not what the factory offered.

There's specific language and there's the intent as a whole, and the definitions language helps clarify intent.

Patents are a little different, because those definitions are about a concept reduced to writing to prove who originated what and who's allowed to use it (and who profits from it).

Flight Service wrote: In reply to JG Pasterjak: Thanks Maybe I should write a rule revision to keep them from running into any smart asses like me.

I had a conversation with Andy Hollis at the Rolex 24, and he's apparently a smartass like you. Every time a proposed rule came up on the committee he was on, he would say "If you do that... I'm going to [bad idea here] . Is that what you intended?"

You should apply for the Street Advisory Committee or the SEB if you want to fix rule sets ;)

This has been thoroughly clarified in fast track.

If the 16" wheel was only offered in a 7" width, then the widest 15" wheel you could use is a 15x7, even if the car was also offered with a 18x8", for example. Therefore, if you wanted to use the 8" width, the smallest diameter you could use is a 17x8.

You don't get to mix and match. If you use the +- diameter allowance, you have to use the wheel width (and offset) of the wheel from which you are using the allowance.

Since the original post also did say "NASA", I'll answer as best I can on that one, as the rules are very different from SCCA. As far as I know, there's no NASA 'Showroom Stock' style class, everything falls into the TT/NX rules for autocross purposes.

Wheels themselves are listed as no-points modification, you can change diameter and width to your hearts content. Only tire width is factored into classifications, based on what's printed on the sidewall (With one or two Hoosier exemptions). Can still run any size you want, just that the wider you get in relation to the base class width, the more points you accumulate for upclassing purposes.

-Hans

Nothing constructive to add, but this is why i plan in cam and c prepared.

The only thing I find odd here is the people trying to defend the rule as written. The facts someone has to ask or go to fast track or look at another section of the rules should tell them something is wrong with the rule and it should be changed.

If people want to start looking at reasons no one wants to participate in autocross, this is a good place to start.

I thought it was clear as written. I think the bigger issue is "I want to run what I want to run, how can I interpret the rule to accommodate my want" or "if I can interpret the rule this way and get away with it..."

Oh the humanity....

Was it SCCA or Rally America that a couple years ago actually had to clarify that it's ok to change a factory radio, but you could only install a single DIN sized unit?