View Single Post
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-06-2010, 01:03
PAR_WIG1350's Avatar
PAR_WIG1350 PAR_WIG1350 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Alan Wells
FRC #1350 (Rambots)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,189
PAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond reputePAR_WIG1350 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Non-treaded wheels?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Baker View Post
The application process suggests that some of the tread is ground away so that the metal lacing does not stick above the tread. The lacing has smooth edges and does not help in gaining any traction. The sole purpose is to lace the ends of the tread together.

In my opinion, rule R08, is not a "no metal on carpet rule". I have heard that some inspectors call it as such, and they are incorrect (again, in my opinion). Rule R08 is there to not allow "traction devices" that are metal, to assist with gaining traction to a system.

In the little bit of area where these laces touch the ground, I predict that there is LESS traction than there would be if there was no lacing. These are smooth, rounded metal hardware items.

I hope this helps. If there are inspectors out there who believe that R08 is a "no metal on carpet" rule only, then maybe we need a whole 'nother thread to discuss this.

Andy B.
And thus grounding wires are legal, but still, the tread is a traction device. Couldn't the laces be considered a surface feature of, or an attachment on, the tread?
__________________