Which part doesn't make sense?
1. That the arbitrary constraint in the rules makes it more expensive to buy wheels?
2. That simply deleting the language establishing the constraint and relying upon the language already in the ITCS to limit legal wheel size is an example of a rules change making thigns cheaper? ...
1. All constraints in the rules are arbitrary if you want to view them as such, or if one completely ignores context. The ITAC arguably doesn't have the luxury of reframing what is arbitrary and what isn't. More simply, you assertion moves from a huge overstatement: That restricting wheel size "makes it more expensive to buy wheels." That's patently not true unless you argue that the exception defines the rule.
2. Again, your contention that opening up wheel size to anything that keeps the tire inside the fender will "make things cheaper" for IT competitors across the entire membership just isn't justified by any evidence - unless I've missed something. Controlling for all other variables, it's generally the case that larger wheels of any given manufacturer and style cost more than smaller ones.
Now, if you are talking about saving money for a few, individual racers in specific unusual situations - like I completely appreciate Rodger and his Mopar bros are in - you are right. But it would be HORRIBLE policy to make categorical rules to satisfy the neeeds, even urgent needs, of a few people.
I'm a little amazed that this is seemingly so hard to understand.
K