b13 bully, don’t want to shit on your thread, but in most cases that statement is actually true. I’ve seen many rota’s fall apart on the track (cracking, bending, and even all the spokes snapping off from the center hub), and you can equally compare camera equipment to cars. lenses fall into the same category as rims (points skewed of course, but you get what i mean). bare with me.
if you look at getting a Canon zoom lense, for instance lets go with the 24-105mm f/4 L IS, that has a starting price of $1000 or so used. Now, for comparison, we’ll use a close third-part equivalent, the Tamron 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6, which is about $350 used. The price difference in those two lenses has nothing to do with their focal length, but in the build quality, and the quality of the glass used. With most third-party manufactures for camera lenses, they use lower-quality glass than the main manufacturers, and thus, explaining why they’re cheaper.
The above can be applied to cars, because when it comes down to it, you get what you pay for. and don’t get me wrong, i don’t mind rota’s, or third-party lense’s, but make sure you do severe research prior to, and don’t just feel better by looking at all the positives and call it a day, read the various sites that are dedicated to anti-rota campaigns, understand their views and opinions, and maybe stop to think why there are so many before you buy.
and please, don’t jump at any chance to start an e-flame with everyone. a simple “i disagree, but please voice your opinions as to why you feel that way” would suffice.
EDIT: and thought i would add in about the statement about big name teams using rota’s, if you pay someone enough money they’ll do anything, as they’re just being used from a sponsorship most likely.