Frakking frak, people get your logic together, just because present road cars are in a *fashion* phase of preferring larger rims has zero bearing on whether the size is "in the past" or not!!!
SYNTAX COUNTS.
If you want to the cars to LOOK different, fine, let's regulate things so they LOOK different, but stop this mindless "in the past" rhetoric that is devoid of meaning.
Does men having short hair mean you are "living in the past"? Because at one time, having long hair was "new". But now, does having long hair mean you are "living in the past"? Even though in the past, it was not acceptable as it is now to have long hair in common work places?
That's FASHION. Performance wise, larger profile tires makes sense, and there is no reason to create yet another boon doggle in forcing a ton of money to be spent on a suspension war.
Additionally, I prefer in a destructive crash to have a smaller rim involved than a large one. I'm not sure why nobody is discussing the safety aspect, a 17" rim with a deflated tire is going to go a lot farther than 13" with a deflated tire. And in an odd-angle collision, it's safer to have more impact-absorbing rubber involved, instead of a larger metallic object. Then there is the safety of visibility - if one looks at the video cockpit footage when Martin Brundle drove the test car, it's obvious forward sight lines are blocked. Honda's "elephant ears" nose wings were a safety concern, but these more-sight reducing wheels are not?
Nonsense.
Edited by chipmcdonald, 06 June 2015 - 11:48.