GT 1/8 Scale Rules and Setup Sharing
05-02-2012, 04:25 PM
#316
05-02-2012, 04:26 PM
#317
05-02-2012, 04:37 PM
#318
05-02-2012, 04:49 PM
#320
how would compare it to the ofna's...
What do you really like about the car..
What dont you like .
cost?
05-02-2012, 05:14 PM
#321
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Was in Toledo, OH now Battle Ground, WA
Posts: 833
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
I must need a new clutch bell, when I set up the clutch (the "propeller" style) with my clutch bell, approx 1/3 of the clutch shoe is hanging below (exposed) the end of the clutch bell; in other words, there is a big gap between the flywheel and clutch bell. If I try to close the gap between the flywheel and bell, the pins for the shoes hits he top of the bell... Thanks for the help!!!!
05-02-2012, 05:24 PM
#322
clete.....i have to whisper this........don't give up your ofna.....steal
t-hawks setup and stay happy
if cole does the first ever review of that car he'll most likely talk about
the new swear words he learned...........it's a kit..........he's looking for
the magic setup.........
t-hawks setup and stay happy
if cole does the first ever review of that car he'll most likely talk about
the new swear words he learned...........it's a kit..........he's looking for
the magic setup.........
05-02-2012, 07:41 PM
#323
clete.....i have to whisper this........don't give up your ofna.....steal
t-hawks setup and stay happy
if cole does the first ever review of that car he'll most likely talk about
the new swear words he learned...........it's a kit..........he's looking for
the magic setup.........
t-hawks setup and stay happy
if cole does the first ever review of that car he'll most likely talk about
the new swear words he learned...........it's a kit..........he's looking for
the magic setup.........
I don't think Cole can handle the corner speed from that Team C GT yet
. Spooky, you have to remind those guys "slow is fast" sometimes around certain corners.
05-02-2012, 08:43 PM
#324
I must need a new clutch bell, when I set up the clutch (the "propeller" style) with my clutch bell, approx 1/3 of the clutch shoe is hanging below (exposed) the end of the clutch bell; in other words, there is a big gap between the flywheel and clutch bell. If I try to close the gap between the flywheel and bell, the pins for the shoes hits he top of the bell... Thanks for the help!!!!
05-02-2012, 09:02 PM
#325
clete.....i have to whisper this........don't give up your ofna.....steal
t-hawks setup and stay happy
if cole does the first ever review of that car he'll most likely talk about
the new swear words he learned...........it's a kit..........he's looking for
the magic setup.........
t-hawks setup and stay happy
if cole does the first ever review of that car he'll most likely talk about
the new swear words he learned...........it's a kit..........he's looking for
the magic setup.........
You should prob just keep quiet about the things you know nothing about.
I've came a long ways since I used to race with you. 
Slow is fast my friend, and smooth is always fast. And the Team C is smooth as a babies bottom!!
05-02-2012, 09:07 PM
#326
But I really like the Team C car. Very nice plastic quality and build quality. I got one of the first production kits. Was missing some hardware, with some mismatched stuff. But overall am pleased with it.
It is about a $500 street price for it though.
Setting this car up is definitely very different than a IGT with chassis kick up. But slowly getting it dialed in. Once I get used to how this thing feels compared to my Kyosho I'll be trying to knock on spooky's door again.
It's a tad on the heavy side, but still lighter than those damn DM1's
I don't like the stock motor mount. Any time you pull the engine you have to re-mesh. I like that it comes with full cvds, 3 shoe clutch, very nice shoe type trans. Strong flat chassis. Really good dual brakes. The diff's are compact and smooth. Sway bars front and rear.
Is it a very nice car? Yes. Is it going to be "the" competitive edge? I doubt it. The Kyosho and Ofna can still hold their own just fine.
The big down side is aftermarket parts support and lack of a USA distributor. So my pit box looks like I am the USA distributor for Team C America. lol
It is about a $500 street price for it though.
Setting this car up is definitely very different than a IGT with chassis kick up. But slowly getting it dialed in. Once I get used to how this thing feels compared to my Kyosho I'll be trying to knock on spooky's door again.
It's a tad on the heavy side, but still lighter than those damn DM1's
I don't like the stock motor mount. Any time you pull the engine you have to re-mesh. I like that it comes with full cvds, 3 shoe clutch, very nice shoe type trans. Strong flat chassis. Really good dual brakes. The diff's are compact and smooth. Sway bars front and rear.
Is it a very nice car? Yes. Is it going to be "the" competitive edge? I doubt it. The Kyosho and Ofna can still hold their own just fine.
The big down side is aftermarket parts support and lack of a USA distributor. So my pit box looks like I am the USA distributor for Team C America. lol
05-03-2012, 07:45 AM
#327
Nope Cole......
I reread the TeamC thread again and your first words on your review used the
word...'difficulty'. Until your car manufacturer imparts some of the 'factory driver setup info' for you I think my current knowledge serves quite well.
I'm not sure you're going to get the secrets from JJ Wang or his brother quite yet. I sure don't see a whole bunch of people offering ..........wait, I see NO one
offering info except maybe the existence of a spring option.
My advice for Clete still stands........you are fine with your OFNA........why
mess with a good thing.
I reread the TeamC thread again and your first words on your review used the
word...'difficulty'. Until your car manufacturer imparts some of the 'factory driver setup info' for you I think my current knowledge serves quite well.
I'm not sure you're going to get the secrets from JJ Wang or his brother quite yet. I sure don't see a whole bunch of people offering ..........wait, I see NO one
offering info except maybe the existence of a spring option.
My advice for Clete still stands........you are fine with your OFNA........why
mess with a good thing.
05-03-2012, 07:53 AM
#328
Nope Cole......
I reread the TeamC thread again and your first words on your review used the
word...'difficulty'. Until your car manufacturer imparts some of the 'factory driver setup info' for you I think my current knowledge serves quite well.
I'm not sure you're going to get the secrets from JJ Wang or his brother quite yet. I sure don't see a whole bunch of people offering ..........wait, I see NO one
offering info except maybe the existence of a spring option.
My advice for Clete still stands........you are fine with your OFNA........why
mess with a good thing.
I reread the TeamC thread again and your first words on your review used the
word...'difficulty'. Until your car manufacturer imparts some of the 'factory driver setup info' for you I think my current knowledge serves quite well.
I'm not sure you're going to get the secrets from JJ Wang or his brother quite yet. I sure don't see a whole bunch of people offering ..........wait, I see NO one
offering info except maybe the existence of a spring option.
My advice for Clete still stands........you are fine with your OFNA........why
mess with a good thing.
05-03-2012, 07:59 AM
#329
Regarding the issue of "adjustable" clutches, I have some questions and comments...
Exactly what does "adjustable" mean?
It has been stated that one can change springs, shoes, and even modify the weight of the shoes (shaving), etc. but that "mechanical" adjustments are not allowed.
From this we can draw the conclusion...
The ability to "tune" the clutch engagement to a drivers individual car and track conditions is clearly desirable (as opposed to an exact "Spec" clutch setup with exactly prescribed springs, shoes, flywheel, bell etc. that cannot be modified in any way).
So then what exactly does "adjustable" mean? After all, from the moment that you allow any "change" from a "spec" clutch you are really allowing "adjustment" regardless of what you call the "modification" or "change" and, as we have concluded, the ability to "alter" the characteristics of the clutch is clearly desirable.
It has been suggested that the meaning of "adjustable" is a "mechanical" adjustment. From this clarification and the acceptability of alterations and modifications to clutch components (i.e. shaving shoes) can it be concluded that a more clear rule would be:
***Changes that alter the "characteristics" of a clutch can be made without limitation as long as the change comes from a physical modification or the addition, removal or replacement of a component in the clutch but NOT a solely mechanical change.***
This seems to be the current state of explanation thus far...
We can then conclude the following....
The M2C adjustable flywheel, which can be "tuned", "adjusted", or whatever you want to call it, by adding or removing set screws from the flywheel, is LEGAL. Specifically it is legal because you are adding, removing or replacing a component to effect a "change".
The Fioroni "Vario" clutches are all ILLEGAL. This is because they posses a "mechanical" adjustment which allows you to change the "characteristics" (specifically the spring tension) without adding, removing, modifying or replacing a component.
The Buku clutch is ILLEGAL for the same reason.
However, if the Buku design were changed so that instead of turning an "adjustment" screw to effect the "change" you instead removed and replaced a "spring seat" to effect a change, then this version would be LEGAL.
So, a driver would have a box of tiny different (perhaps color coded) "spring seats" (sounds a lot like a box of different springs, gold, red, black, 30 degrees, 35 degrees, etc, doesn't it...) that they could swap out to "tune" their clutch to different track conditions. And of course because modification of components is allowed then a savvy driver would have these seats hand ground to length to give him exactly the levels of tension he was looking for in advance...
And this is better why?
And who is going to tech a rule like this? Someone running around trying to determine if a person is running a Vario clutch, or what version of Buku, the Original "Speed Tune" or the new "Quick Change GT Legal" version.
The simple reality is, the ability to make "Adjustments" or "tuning" or "alterations" or whatever you want to call it, to improve your performance on the track is a GOOD thing. If it wasn't clearly desirable then everyone would be demanding a "no modifications spec clutch".
Why then is the term "adjustable' being used at all? It reality, it has nothing to do with "adjustments", "adjust-ability, or "tuning"....
It has EVERYTHING to do with Centax or more specifically "Axial" style clutches. Obviously no one is interested in these "on-road" clutches being allowed. It's clear that they are the SOLE source of this issue in the first place. Unfortunately the term "adjustable' was initially used synonymously with "Centax" in the beginning of this discussion well before the range of currently used off-road clutches were considered.
Now later, after the term "adjustable" has been added to a proposed rule (for no real reason other then trying to clearly prohibit Centax or Axial clutches), it must be interpreted to be able to consistently and repeatably make a ruling on clutch legality in a practical manner by a wide range of potential techs and tracks. So we must stumble, case by case, through the VERY wide range of "completely legal for off-road racing" clutches that exist in the world.
Of course, we see all of the above issues arising, which seems to be the exact opposite of what everyone is looking for ... Simplicity and Clarity.
I would suggest that there is a very clear delineation that should be applied instead...
The simple prohibition on Axial (or Centax) style clutches, and/or the mandate that all clutches be Radial (to use a more accurate term). This completely clear and simple delineation could be easily identified and inspected, and is completely clear to understand. (Yes, I know the first question is going to be what about the Werks Power clutch?. The Werks clutch is clearly a "radial" clutch. The spring tension is on the axis but is irrelevant. The TORQUE DELIVERY comes from the shoes traveling out on the radius (hence "radial") and engaging the clutch bell just like every other "Off-Road" clutch.)
I submit this for consideration and, more importantly for the purposes of starting out with a rule that in the future can Practically be included in a Sanctioning Bodies rules, which a prohibition on "adjust-ability" could never be for now obvious reasons...
and, propose the simple rule.
Clutches: Axial (Centax) style clutches are prohibited.
(and if you wish to add: "Only Off-Road, Radial style clutches are allowed.")
Short of a rule like this one, the prohibition on "adjustable' clutches is in for a long, detailed and argument filled journey, which of course makes it that much more likely no one will pay attention to it anyway and I doubt that this is the goal of these discussion...
Exactly what does "adjustable" mean?
It has been stated that one can change springs, shoes, and even modify the weight of the shoes (shaving), etc. but that "mechanical" adjustments are not allowed.
From this we can draw the conclusion...
The ability to "tune" the clutch engagement to a drivers individual car and track conditions is clearly desirable (as opposed to an exact "Spec" clutch setup with exactly prescribed springs, shoes, flywheel, bell etc. that cannot be modified in any way).
So then what exactly does "adjustable" mean? After all, from the moment that you allow any "change" from a "spec" clutch you are really allowing "adjustment" regardless of what you call the "modification" or "change" and, as we have concluded, the ability to "alter" the characteristics of the clutch is clearly desirable.
It has been suggested that the meaning of "adjustable" is a "mechanical" adjustment. From this clarification and the acceptability of alterations and modifications to clutch components (i.e. shaving shoes) can it be concluded that a more clear rule would be:
***Changes that alter the "characteristics" of a clutch can be made without limitation as long as the change comes from a physical modification or the addition, removal or replacement of a component in the clutch but NOT a solely mechanical change.***
This seems to be the current state of explanation thus far...
We can then conclude the following....
The M2C adjustable flywheel, which can be "tuned", "adjusted", or whatever you want to call it, by adding or removing set screws from the flywheel, is LEGAL. Specifically it is legal because you are adding, removing or replacing a component to effect a "change".
The Fioroni "Vario" clutches are all ILLEGAL. This is because they posses a "mechanical" adjustment which allows you to change the "characteristics" (specifically the spring tension) without adding, removing, modifying or replacing a component.
The Buku clutch is ILLEGAL for the same reason.
However, if the Buku design were changed so that instead of turning an "adjustment" screw to effect the "change" you instead removed and replaced a "spring seat" to effect a change, then this version would be LEGAL.
So, a driver would have a box of tiny different (perhaps color coded) "spring seats" (sounds a lot like a box of different springs, gold, red, black, 30 degrees, 35 degrees, etc, doesn't it...) that they could swap out to "tune" their clutch to different track conditions. And of course because modification of components is allowed then a savvy driver would have these seats hand ground to length to give him exactly the levels of tension he was looking for in advance...
And this is better why?
And who is going to tech a rule like this? Someone running around trying to determine if a person is running a Vario clutch, or what version of Buku, the Original "Speed Tune" or the new "Quick Change GT Legal" version.
The simple reality is, the ability to make "Adjustments" or "tuning" or "alterations" or whatever you want to call it, to improve your performance on the track is a GOOD thing. If it wasn't clearly desirable then everyone would be demanding a "no modifications spec clutch".
Why then is the term "adjustable' being used at all? It reality, it has nothing to do with "adjustments", "adjust-ability, or "tuning"....
It has EVERYTHING to do with Centax or more specifically "Axial" style clutches. Obviously no one is interested in these "on-road" clutches being allowed. It's clear that they are the SOLE source of this issue in the first place. Unfortunately the term "adjustable' was initially used synonymously with "Centax" in the beginning of this discussion well before the range of currently used off-road clutches were considered.
Now later, after the term "adjustable" has been added to a proposed rule (for no real reason other then trying to clearly prohibit Centax or Axial clutches), it must be interpreted to be able to consistently and repeatably make a ruling on clutch legality in a practical manner by a wide range of potential techs and tracks. So we must stumble, case by case, through the VERY wide range of "completely legal for off-road racing" clutches that exist in the world.
Of course, we see all of the above issues arising, which seems to be the exact opposite of what everyone is looking for ... Simplicity and Clarity.
I would suggest that there is a very clear delineation that should be applied instead...
The simple prohibition on Axial (or Centax) style clutches, and/or the mandate that all clutches be Radial (to use a more accurate term). This completely clear and simple delineation could be easily identified and inspected, and is completely clear to understand. (Yes, I know the first question is going to be what about the Werks Power clutch?. The Werks clutch is clearly a "radial" clutch. The spring tension is on the axis but is irrelevant. The TORQUE DELIVERY comes from the shoes traveling out on the radius (hence "radial") and engaging the clutch bell just like every other "Off-Road" clutch.)
I submit this for consideration and, more importantly for the purposes of starting out with a rule that in the future can Practically be included in a Sanctioning Bodies rules, which a prohibition on "adjust-ability" could never be for now obvious reasons...
and, propose the simple rule.
Clutches: Axial (Centax) style clutches are prohibited.
(and if you wish to add: "Only Off-Road, Radial style clutches are allowed.")
Short of a rule like this one, the prohibition on "adjustable' clutches is in for a long, detailed and argument filled journey, which of course makes it that much more likely no one will pay attention to it anyway and I doubt that this is the goal of these discussion...
05-03-2012, 08:02 AM
#330
Regarding the issue of "adjustable" clutches, I have some questions and comments...
Exactly what does "adjustable" mean?
It has been stated that one can change springs, shoes, and even modify the weight of the shoes (shaving), etc. but that "mechanical" adjustments are not allowed.
From this we can draw the conclusion...
The ability to "tune" the clutch engagement to a drivers individual car and track conditions is clearly desirable (as opposed to an exact "Spec" clutch setup with exactly prescribed springs, shoes, flywheel, bell etc. that cannot be modified in any way).
So then what exactly does "adjustable" mean? After all, from the moment that you allow any "change" from a "spec" clutch you are really allowing "adjustment" regardless of what you call the "modification" or "change" and, as we have concluded, the ability to "alter" the characteristics of the clutch is clearly desirable.
It has been suggested that the meaning of "adjustable" is a "mechanical" adjustment. From this clarification and the acceptability of alterations and modifications to clutch components (i.e. shaving shoes) can it be concluded that a more clear rule would be:
***Changes that alter the "characteristics" of a clutch can be made without limitation as long as the change comes from a physical modification or the addition, removal or replacement of a component in the clutch but NOT a solely mechanical change.***
This seems to be the current state of explanation thus far...
We can then conclude the following....
The M2C adjustable flywheel, which can be "tuned", "adjusted", or whatever you want to call it, by adding or removing set screws from the flywheel, is LEGAL. Specifically it is legal because you are adding, removing or replacing a component to effect a "change".
The Fioroni "Vario" clutches are all ILLEGAL. This is because they posses a "mechanical" adjustment which allows you to change the "characteristics" (specifically the spring tension) without adding, removing, modifying or replacing a component.
The Buku clutch is ILLEGAL for the same reason.
However, if the Buku design were changed so that instead of turning an "adjustment" screw to effect the "change" you instead removed and replaced a "spring seat" to effect a change, then this version would be LEGAL.
So, a driver would have a box of tiny different (perhaps color coded) "spring seats" (sounds a lot like a box of different springs, gold, red, black, 30 degrees, 35 degrees, etc, doesn't it...) that they could swap out to "tune" their clutch to different track conditions. And of course because modification of components is allowed then a savvy driver would have these seats hand ground to length to give him exactly the levels of tension he was looking for in advance...
And this is better why?
And who is going to tech a rule like this? Someone running around trying to determine if a person is running a Vario clutch, or what version of Buku, the Original "Speed Tune" or the new "Quick Change GT Legal" version.
The simple reality is, the ability to make "Adjustments" or "tuning" or "alterations" or whatever you want to call it, to improve your performance on the track is a GOOD thing. If it wasn't clearly desirable then everyone would be demanding a "no modifications spec clutch".
Why then is the term "adjustable' being used at all? It reality, it has nothing to do with "adjustments", "adjust-ability, or "tuning"....
It has EVERYTHING to do with Centax or more specifically "Axial" style clutches. Obviously no one is interested in these "on-road" clutches being allowed. It's clear that they are the SOLE source of this issue in the first place. Unfortunately the term "adjustable' was initially used synonymously with "Centax" in the beginning of this discussion well before the range of currently used off-road clutches were considered.
Now later, after the term "adjustable" has been added to a proposed rule (for no real reason other then trying to clearly prohibit Centax or Axial clutches), it must be interpreted to be able to consistently and repeatably make a ruling on clutch legality in a practical manner by a wide range of potential techs and tracks. So we must stumble, case by case, through the VERY wide range of "completely legal for off-road racing" clutches that exist in the world.
Of course, we see all of the above issues arising, which seems to be the exact opposite of what everyone is looking for ... Simplicity and Clarity.
I would suggest that there is a very clear delineation that should be applied instead...
The simple prohibition on Axial (or Centax) style clutches, and/or the mandate that all clutches be Radial (to use a more accurate term). This completely clear and simple delineation could be easily identified and inspected, and is completely clear to understand. (Yes, I know the first question is going to be what about the Werks Power clutch?. The Werks clutch is clearly a "radial" clutch. The spring tension is on the axis but is irrelevant. The TORQUE DELIVERY comes from the shoes traveling out on the radius (hence "radial") and engaging the clutch bell just like every other "Off-Road" clutch.)
I submit this for consideration and, more importantly for the purposes of starting out with a rule that in the future can Practically be included in a Sanctioning Bodies rules, which a prohibition on "adjust-ability" could never be for now obvious reasons...
and, propose the simple rule.
Clutches: Axial (Centax) style clutches are prohibited.
(and if you wish to add: "Only Off-Road, Radial style clutches are allowed.")
Short of a rule like this one, the prohibition on "adjustable' clutches is in for a long, detailed and argument filled journey, which of course makes it that much more likely no one will pay attention to it anyway and I doubt that this is the goal of these discussion...
Exactly what does "adjustable" mean?
It has been stated that one can change springs, shoes, and even modify the weight of the shoes (shaving), etc. but that "mechanical" adjustments are not allowed.
From this we can draw the conclusion...
The ability to "tune" the clutch engagement to a drivers individual car and track conditions is clearly desirable (as opposed to an exact "Spec" clutch setup with exactly prescribed springs, shoes, flywheel, bell etc. that cannot be modified in any way).
So then what exactly does "adjustable" mean? After all, from the moment that you allow any "change" from a "spec" clutch you are really allowing "adjustment" regardless of what you call the "modification" or "change" and, as we have concluded, the ability to "alter" the characteristics of the clutch is clearly desirable.
It has been suggested that the meaning of "adjustable" is a "mechanical" adjustment. From this clarification and the acceptability of alterations and modifications to clutch components (i.e. shaving shoes) can it be concluded that a more clear rule would be:
***Changes that alter the "characteristics" of a clutch can be made without limitation as long as the change comes from a physical modification or the addition, removal or replacement of a component in the clutch but NOT a solely mechanical change.***
This seems to be the current state of explanation thus far...
We can then conclude the following....
The M2C adjustable flywheel, which can be "tuned", "adjusted", or whatever you want to call it, by adding or removing set screws from the flywheel, is LEGAL. Specifically it is legal because you are adding, removing or replacing a component to effect a "change".
The Fioroni "Vario" clutches are all ILLEGAL. This is because they posses a "mechanical" adjustment which allows you to change the "characteristics" (specifically the spring tension) without adding, removing, modifying or replacing a component.
The Buku clutch is ILLEGAL for the same reason.
However, if the Buku design were changed so that instead of turning an "adjustment" screw to effect the "change" you instead removed and replaced a "spring seat" to effect a change, then this version would be LEGAL.
So, a driver would have a box of tiny different (perhaps color coded) "spring seats" (sounds a lot like a box of different springs, gold, red, black, 30 degrees, 35 degrees, etc, doesn't it...) that they could swap out to "tune" their clutch to different track conditions. And of course because modification of components is allowed then a savvy driver would have these seats hand ground to length to give him exactly the levels of tension he was looking for in advance...
And this is better why?
And who is going to tech a rule like this? Someone running around trying to determine if a person is running a Vario clutch, or what version of Buku, the Original "Speed Tune" or the new "Quick Change GT Legal" version.
The simple reality is, the ability to make "Adjustments" or "tuning" or "alterations" or whatever you want to call it, to improve your performance on the track is a GOOD thing. If it wasn't clearly desirable then everyone would be demanding a "no modifications spec clutch".
Why then is the term "adjustable' being used at all? It reality, it has nothing to do with "adjustments", "adjust-ability, or "tuning"....
It has EVERYTHING to do with Centax or more specifically "Axial" style clutches. Obviously no one is interested in these "on-road" clutches being allowed. It's clear that they are the SOLE source of this issue in the first place. Unfortunately the term "adjustable' was initially used synonymously with "Centax" in the beginning of this discussion well before the range of currently used off-road clutches were considered.
Now later, after the term "adjustable" has been added to a proposed rule (for no real reason other then trying to clearly prohibit Centax or Axial clutches), it must be interpreted to be able to consistently and repeatably make a ruling on clutch legality in a practical manner by a wide range of potential techs and tracks. So we must stumble, case by case, through the VERY wide range of "completely legal for off-road racing" clutches that exist in the world.
Of course, we see all of the above issues arising, which seems to be the exact opposite of what everyone is looking for ... Simplicity and Clarity.
I would suggest that there is a very clear delineation that should be applied instead...
The simple prohibition on Axial (or Centax) style clutches, and/or the mandate that all clutches be Radial (to use a more accurate term). This completely clear and simple delineation could be easily identified and inspected, and is completely clear to understand. (Yes, I know the first question is going to be what about the Werks Power clutch?. The Werks clutch is clearly a "radial" clutch. The spring tension is on the axis but is irrelevant. The TORQUE DELIVERY comes from the shoes traveling out on the radius (hence "radial") and engaging the clutch bell just like every other "Off-Road" clutch.)
I submit this for consideration and, more importantly for the purposes of starting out with a rule that in the future can Practically be included in a Sanctioning Bodies rules, which a prohibition on "adjust-ability" could never be for now obvious reasons...
and, propose the simple rule.
Clutches: Axial (Centax) style clutches are prohibited.
(and if you wish to add: "Only Off-Road, Radial style clutches are allowed.")
Short of a rule like this one, the prohibition on "adjustable' clutches is in for a long, detailed and argument filled journey, which of course makes it that much more likely no one will pay attention to it anyway and I doubt that this is the goal of these discussion...
