That's your assumption, and the fault in your logic (and the reason this got screwed up in the first place). Show me in the rules where it dictates a minimum wheel diameter. There is nothing in the rules that states there's a minimum wheel diameter. You assume there is, but there isn't.
Face it: you boys screwed the pooch on the wording of this one. The whole ITCS 17.1.9.D.7.a.1 paragraph, p ITCS 13 is a bastardized hacked-up rule that makes absolutely no sense. By its wording it's unclear and open to misinterpretation and confusion. At a minimum you should have written something like "may increase wheel diameter to a maximum of 15 inches" but instead used vague words like "up to". Hand the book to someone that's never seen the prior regs and ask them what they think it means, and I'll bet you'll get a confused look and multiple reads longs before you get an opinion. The responsibility of the rulesmakers is to clearly and plainly specify the rule and intent; the fact that there's even a debate on this rule is de facto proof that that job didn't get done. Surprise! Folks read vague rules differently.
Simply admit the mistake, strike the whole damn paragraph, and fix it ASAP, but - as Geo is fond of saying - don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
And stop complaining about people taking advantage of the shortcomings in the vague wording of the rules and installs Motec ECUs, 10-inch wheels, spherical bearings, tube frame chassis, and loads of other crap that was never intended but came about as a DIRECT RESULT of crappy wording in the regs!
And there's no need to be defensive, rude, insulting, and arrogant, Darin. This is an IT rule we're talking, not the end of civilized society as we know it today, and no one's making disparaging comments about your family history. You blew it, get over it.
