More on tires. SRF Goodyears for IT.

[Flyinglizard]

I have used the Spec Racer Ford tires for atleast 10 years now. Set lap record @ Sebring one time on free tires (2:44+-)Yokes)
I put a proposal up to allow the Goodyear treaded tires for IT cars that can run the 13in. They are not fast, but are very consistant and reasonably durable. Mike ran the school for three days on the Goodyears and than we switched to used Hoosiers. He went 1:29 , Goodyear, 1:27.2 on Hoosier. (ITB Golf)
The cost of the Hoosier is about $200per??
The cost 0f the Goodyear is $0 or 10 $per.
I will bring a car to the Summit point 12 hour , if we can run the cheap/ free tires.
In these days of zero cash racing , and small car counts,reducing the 800$ tire bill seems like a good idea.
PS, we always autocross on these and had zero failures, just lots of miles.
MM

[Andy Bettencourt]

The proposal has been received by the ITAC.

[dickita15]

Interesting idea. I assume the special consideration is required because the spec racer tires are not DOT stamped.

[JeffYoung]

It was unclear to me from the proposal if they are DOT stamped or not (by the way, I did my school on old SRF BFGs, hard as rocks). If they are, they are legal anyway, correct?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I cannot find any data that shows that they are DOT. I don't believe any of the tires on Goodyear's site are DOT currently.

[ekim952522000]

That's sounds like a great way to save money if you are on a tight budget.

[Andy Bettencourt]

How do you set a lap record on tires that are not fast?

[JohnRW]

Unlike previous SRF-spec tires, the Goodyear bias slick that is the current SRF tire is not a DOT tire. It's actually an asphalt short-track oval tire, kinda "re-purposed" by a different part # and addition of an "SCCA Spec Ford" marking on the sidewall. No tread...just a couple of radial grooves.

http://www.scca-enterprises.com/updates/General_Goodyear_Technical_Info.pdf

[jumbojimbo]

Strike that free Yoko comment from the record. Making the point that FAST free Yokos are good is not a good support argument that SLOW free SRFs would be good for the class.

I was kinda confused by the other data. Reformatted to be readable it says:
Hoosier 1:27.2
SRF 1:29

Supports the arguement that SRF's are slower. Well, until people start chiming in about pressures and setup.

If it can be generally accepted that SRFs are slower than Hoosiers and Kumhos it sure would be nice to see this approved. I could run an extra event per year.

On the other hand, blah blah blah class philosphy blah blah blah. Meanwhile $20/gallon race gas is within class philosophy and $2 pump gas from down the street fails. Sigh.

[Flyinglizard]

The Goodyears are 22 in tall, about 7 in wide. Big ,tall, kinda "wobbly" by current DOT race tire standards. They are not DOT rated tires. This size also is a ministock tire.
The Hoosiers are 225/45/13, about 20.5in tall ,8in wide. Very soft.
129.5 = Goodyears
1:27.2 Hoosiers, Roebling Road.
Correct. Any of the DOT "race" tires are faster.
The Sebring lap on SRF Yokes is my claim to fame. Welded diff helps a lot @ Sebring, along with tons of laps.
We did a few Summit 12hr races, using only SRF tires.
MM

[lateapex911]

This strikes me as one of those deals that appears ok, on the surface, but there's lots of "Do we really know what we think we know?" issues, AND, it is precedent setting.

On the other hand, I bet people are using them already, and nobody gives two looks...

[Knestis]

How fast this particular tire is or isn't is not really the question. The question is whether we want to open the barn door and non-DOT tires out into the IT pasture.

And they don't cost 0$ - they cost $173 (from our friends at PhilsTireService.com - http://philstireservice.com/pages/tires/tires_goodyear.htm).

K

[Flyinglizard]

There is plenty of good data already. Ask the SRF guys. The old Yoke 048 are a very little bit faster. The 048 are alot slower than the current DOT racer tires. The 048 are 205/60/13.
The Goodyears are 22in.tall, about the same OD as a 205/65/13.
I guess that it comes down adjusting to the real world.
Does SCCA want to allow a safe, slightly slower tire, so that more small time guys can run midpack and have a nice, cheap, decent weekend? Or do we want to squeeze these people out of club racing?
Those take off tires have to go somewhere, either to the dump or on my car. Think Green
I will provide grilled steaks to all that run the Goodyears,at the races that we run the ITB car. First gets a beer also.
Vote now, here, loudly. :>
MM

[Flyinglizard]

SRF tires only . Not other slicks.

[shwah]

If you limit it to SRF tires only, the only unintended consequence I can come up with is SRF changing to true racing slicks (which is admittedly unlikely). We have other special cases - Golf Cup cars, BMW fuel cells, 15" wheels.

That said, I'm not sure how big of a difference this will really make on true costs and entries.

[JeffYoung]

You guys need to reread Kirk's post (and Jake's). There is a foundational issue here, and that is do we start allowing non-DOT tires into the mix. While this particular instance may not have any unforeseen consequences (and it may actually have them, we just don't know), it sets a bad precedent in my view.

We have a simple straightforward rule and no (in my view) real justification for braving the unknown circumstances of changing it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am sure there is a DOT tire that isn't great in overall grip but lasts long. Avons? Nittos? RA1's? The REAL solution to the cost premise here is to do a one-time upgrade to 15" wheels and make 5 buddies in Spec Miata and use their take offs.

Another problem with allowing a tire like this is that you become a slave to the rules of another class. What if they change the compound and they become FASTER than they are now? Are you doing to know that? Are you going to outlaw them at that time? Are you going to only allow certain build dates?

It is a bad answer to a question nobody is asking IMHO.

[JoshS]

And they don't cost 0$ - they cost $173 (from our friends at PhilsTireService.com - http://philstireservice.com/pages/tires/tires_goodyear.htm).

Hmm. Looks like a Hoosier of roughly the same size (205/60-13) is $172.

Yes, I understand that some people think it's easier to find used, but still useful, SRF tires than it is to find used, but still useful Hoosiers, but really, is this going to make much of a difference?

Allowing in ONE tire that's available in ONE size, that has the same new cost as a Hoosier R6, how much of a difference could it really make?

[lateapex911]

Does SCCA want to allow a safe, slightly slower tire, so that more small time guys can run midpack and have a nice, cheap, decent weekend? Or do we want to squeeze these people out of club racing?

MM

Hold on, that's just a bunch of BS posturing, and you know it. Sorry.

Do you mean to tell me that you can't buy used tires from one of thousands of racers that are just as fast (or slow)?

I've got dozens of old 7 cycle or so tires sitting in my basement. I'd LOVE to sell them, and i know there are bunches of guys like me.

"Squeeze people out of racing"?

Please.......:rolleyes:

[Mike Guenther]

I have been racing on used Hoosier take offs for over a year now. My best tires are at least 18 months old. I have take offs from Pete E and from Bruce S. In years past I've bought plenty of used Hoosiers and maybe a few Toyos from Mike VS. He has a whole garage stacked up with them in very good condition.

The point is that the SRF tires are not free until someone gives you their used ones. If you want cheap tires there are plenty of good used ones out there that are IT legal. Tons of them. So why change the rule? If you want to buy the SRF tires and use them for track days and maybe practice sessions to save your race tires for qualifying and races, then do that. But stay legal with DOT tires that meet the rules when you qualify and race.

I have been thinking about breaking down and buying my first set of new tires in 21 months. Now I'm thinking about saving the money and getting another set of used. Kip, whatcha got in 15's?

[ekim952522000]

I forgot they are not DOT approved I personally don't feel it is a good idea there are lots of other good places out there to get used tires I think the idea of upgrading to a 15" wheel and buying used spec miata tires is a great idea.

[dickita15]

I forgot they are not DOT approved I personally don't feel it is a good idea there are lots of other good places out there to get used tires I think the idea of upgrading to a 15" wheel and buying used spec miata tires is a great idea.

Except for the part about becoming friends with Miata guys.:D

[trhoppe]

Why do you care if they are IT legal? Thats a fair question to ask IMHO.

What, is someone going to protest you for going over 2 seconds off the pace??

-Tom

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why do you care if they are IT legal? Thats a fair question to ask IMHO.

What, is someone going to protest you for going over 2 seconds off the pace??

-Tom

Sombody 3 seconds off the pace? Patullo said something to this effect once: No legal car should ever finish behind an illegal car, no metter what position they cross the line.

[Greg Amy]

There is a foundational issue here, and that is do we start allowing non-DOT tires into the mix.
Thumbs down. I haven't given it much thought, but you can rest assured that if something like this were to pass, I most certainly would...

[fairgentleman Z]

What is the curb weight of of SRF and ministock?
What is the curb weight of your car?
The Goodyears are 22 in tall, about 7 in wide. Big ,tall, kinda "wobbly" by current DOT race tire standards. They are not DOT rated tires. This size also is a ministock tire.

Do you want to go into a corner beside a guy with "wobbly" tires, that have not met DOT testing standards (albeit usually a formality)?

[Flyinglizard]

This is cracking me up.. 16 years of running SRF tires,now the tires are not Dot , same relative speed(alittle slow)and the desk racers have a cow.
The tire safety value is not in question. It is well within its' design parameters. The SRf is lighter than the ministock. MIni stocks race as light as 1800# and as heavy as 2550#.(same tire). There is no logical reason to exclude a proven,tire ,(available), just because it lacks the DOT tag.
This is specific tire request, "SRF Goodyear", for cars that can run on 13in wheels. This is not a request for race slicks!!
They will not win against ant 40/45/50series Dot race rubber,unless the driver is very poor.
You can repeal the rule,if My Son beats you on these tires!!!
If I could get used Hoosiers, I would. The set I have now is old.( 225/45/13):>
The SRF national guys take off these semi- treaded tires because they slow down about a tenth, the second time out. (But stay at that speed for the rest of the tire life) I get 800laps onour minstocker with these tires, (in a bigger size, 23/8/13).
I would not buy any new Goodyears. The same tire, but larger, (23/8/13) cost 108$ at our local circle track. 168$$??
I have 15 in wheels and a SM. The VW slows down, as the roll out gets bigger. 13s are faster.
Much to do about nothing. MM

[Greg Amy]

- Spec Racer Ford tires are not DOT rated.
- IT rules require DOT tires.
- Ergo, Spec Racer Ford tires are contrary to the IT rules and are illegal.

Period. End of argumentationarianism.

No matter how many excuses you come up with about how "valuable" they are to the community, how "safe" they are, how much "cheaper" they are, or how they can't be competitive (sorry, I missed the clause that says "if it won't make you faster you can do it") you cannot overcome this one simple fact: they're illegal. And even if you were to get a unanimous approval from everyone on this forum that they should be allowed, they'd still be illegal.

If you want to allow non-DOT tires within Improved Touring, even just specific ones, please use the process of sending a request to Topeka via [email protected]. It will be accepted, reviewed by the ITCS, and either forwarded to the CRB as a recommendation or returned to you as "contrary to the philosophy of the class."

See? That was easy.

GregA, "desk racer". Oh, and past ITA champion.

[spnkzss]

- Spec Racer Ford tires are not DOT rated.
- IT rules require DOT tires.
- Ergo, Spec Racer Ford tires are contrary to the IT rules and are illegal.

Period. End of argumentationarianism.

No matter how many excuses you come up with about how "valuable" they are to the community, how "safe" they are, how much "cheaper" they are, or how they can't be competitive (sorry, I missed the clause that says "if it won't make you faster you can do it") you cannot overcome this one simple fact: they're illegal. And even if you were to get a unanimous approval from everyone on this forum that they should be allowed, they'd still be illegal.

If you want to allow non-DOT tires within Improved Touring, even just specific ones, please use the process of sending a request to Topeka via [email protected]. It will be accepted, reviewed by the ITCS, and either forwarded to the CRB as a recommendation or returned to you as "contrary to the philosophy of the class."

See? That was easy.

GregA, "desk racer". Oh, and past ITA champion.

I'd have to kinda agree here. Big can being opened. And I do apologize in advance for sounding like a dick, but tires are part of the sport. If you can't afford the tires, then .... :shrug:

Edit: But I do feel for you a bit. My first year racing I spent on free SRF Toyo take offs.

[jumbojimbo]

Sheesh Greg, take it easy. Read the dang thread before you jump all over people.

"The proposal has been received by the ITAC."

If the proposal is rejected it is rejected. But you can't yell it away here.

[JohnRW]

With minor mods (window clips, fire system, etc), a Golf can run in Prod classes and be legal on the SRF tires.

While there may be a few upper echelon SRF drivers who regularly swap tires, the vast majority run them down to "worthless". There are probably just as many sources of cheap, used DOT tires from Showroom Stock, Spec Miata, T? classes and even IT, as there are for non-DOT tires from the SRF ranks...if not more.

If the argument then becomes "Well, I don't have 15" wheels" or "I don't happen to know those guys", then what is being discussed is modifying the IT tire rules for individual competitors' specific situations. Gee...that sounds like the Production classes, huh ? (Oh my....did I just say that ?)

Speed is irrelevant. If I promise to finish at the back of the pack, can I drive a GT-Lite car in IT (if I put the winshield washer bottle back in) ? Yeah...I didn't think so.

The GCR for each class states a "class philosophy". Is there any support to start fiddling with the one for IT ?

There is a place in SCCA to race a Golf on pooched SRF tires, but that place isn't "every place".

Just sayin.

[jjjanos]

... and either forwarded to the CRB as a recommendation or returned to you as "contrary to the philosophy of the class."



The GCR for each class states a "class philosophy". Is there any support to start fiddling with the one for IT ?

Please find the section of the IT Category rules that state or imply that this is inconsistent with the philosophy of the class and when relying on that wording, please ensure that no allowable modifications violate the quoted text.

Turning this down for inconsistency with class philosophy would be hypocritical. Turning it down because it isn't likely to harm the category *and* explicitily stating so would not be.

That being said, I'm in the DOT only camp.

[JohnRW]

Please find the section of the IT Category rules that state or imply that this is inconsistent with the philosophy of the class and when relying on that wording, please ensure that no allowable modifications violate the quoted text.

Turning this down for inconsistency with class philosophy would be hypocritical. Turning it down because it isn't likely to harm the category *and* explicitily stating so would not be.



Is it your position that any "allowable modifications" (although those allowances are discussed and permitted in the "Intent" portion of the IT category rules) are outside the envelope of IT ? And is it your position that because there are such things as "allowable modifications", any further requirements for other components to remain stock is hypocritical ? It sure does read that way. Your logic is circular.

GCR 9.1.3.A and B repeatedly say things like:

"...To that end, cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer's specifications except for modifications permitted in these rules"

and

"Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered or removed"

DOT tires are a component of this. I think a debate on whether DOT tires are the same as DOT tires when IT first appeared will fail, because a DOT-compliant tire is a DOT-compliant tire. There are no degrees of "pregnant"...you either are or you aren't.

Where is the hypocrisy ? Are you that much of an "originalist" ? Did the requirement for a one-piece driver's seat in IT cars send you screaming down the streets, raging about hypocrisy ?

[jjjanos]

Is it your position that any "allowable modifications" (although those allowances are discussed and permitted in the "Intent" portion of the IT category rules) are outside the envelope of IT ?

The allowable modifications are clearly within the envelope of IT because the rules allow the modifications. It is, however, the granting of those allowances that seem to be in conflict with "It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car." (The Bible)

Note the phrasing - useful and necessary to construct a safe race car.

Most of what we are permitted to do fits the useful test but fails the necessary test. A vehicle meeting the SS category rules (as originally envisioned, pre-truck kits but with a racing seat) is a safe race car. EVERYTHING beyond that is suspect as to whether it is necessary.


And is it your position that because there are such things as "allowable modifications", any further requirements for other components to remain stock is hypocritical ? It sure does read that way. Your logic is circular.

It might be a perfectly logical restriction for the health of the category, but if the justification given is inconsistency with the philosophy of the category, then yes, the stated reason for the denial is hypocritical.

Justify the allowable modifications as to whether they are both the usefull and necessary. Most - and all of the go-fast ones - do not satisfy the constraints and therefore, while allowed, are inconsistent with the intent of the class to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car.



GCR 9.1.3.A and B repeatedly say things like:

"...To that end, cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer's specifications except for modifications permitted in these rules" and "Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered or removed"

Irrelevant. Justify the allowable modifications with the intent to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car. Simply because they are allowed does not mean that they are necessary to construct a safe race car. The modifications are simply useful.


DOT tires are a component of this. I think a debate on whether DOT tires are the same as DOT tires when IT first appeared will fail, because a DOT-compliant tire is a DOT-compliant tire. There are no degrees of "pregnant"...you either are or you aren't.

Justify the allowance for anything but street-legal tires as useful and necessary. Justify the restriction to DOT, but not necessarily street-legal. We use DOT-approved tires because they wanted to use cheap tires and now competitive tires aren't cheap.


Where is the hypocrisy ? Are you that much of an "originalist" ? Did the requirement for a one-piece driver's seat in IT cars send you screaming down the streets, raging about hypocrisy ?

Here's the hypocrisy - allowable modifications are suppose to be limited to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car.

One-piece driver's seats are necessary to construct a safe race car. Alternate final drives, alternate springs, non-stock anti-roll bars aren't necessary. They are simply useful.

[dickita15]

I do think it is a little funny that a standard as convoluted as the DOT standard is being held up by some as the holy grail of IT philosophy.
I am not saying we should do away with the DOT standard but I think the ITAC can review this proposal on its merits without the “inconsistent with the intent of the class” defense.
Tires are our biggest expense, for some more than entry fees. Anybody who comes up with a way to control that cost should get a Nobel Prize. If the ITAC finds there is no down side to allowing the SRF tire then I am okay with that.

[JohnRW]

Note the phrasing - useful and necessary to construct a safe race car.


I'll simply state that your interpretation (and it IS just your interpretation) of that phrase - that anything that isn't necessary to contruct a safe race car cannot be useful, and those two things cannot be mutually exclusive - is simply pedantic. You may interpret the language that way, but others...including the drafters of the language...might consider those two things mutually exclusive. Those who drafted the "intent", and those that have followed them in the rules creation process, obviously don't agree with your interpretation, given the evolution of IT rules. You are a man chasing windmills.

[Knestis]

...Tires are our biggest expense, for some more than entry fees. Anybody who comes up with a way to control that cost should get a Nobel Prize. If the ITAC finds there is no down side to allowing the SRF tire then I am okay with that.

Spend less on tires.

The Fuzion ZRi runs about $75 each in the kind of sizes we use.

The first two years back with the Golf, I used FULL-TREAD Toyos. This is one with 9 hours of track time on it.

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/images/205a.jpg

There are options.

K

[jjjanos]

I'll simply state that your interpretation (and it IS just your interpretation) of that phrase - that anything that isn't necessary to contruct a safe race car cannot be useful, and those two things cannot be mutually exclusive - is simply pedantic. You may interpret the language that way, but others...including the drafters of the language...might consider those two things mutually exclusive. Those who drafted the "intent", and those that have followed them in the rules creation process, obviously don't agree with your interpretation, given the evolution of IT rules. You are a man chasing windmills.

Of course its pedantic. It's the freaking rules! These are formal rules and you either pay attention to them or you end up being illegal.

Moreover, the GCR is very clearly - they cannot be mutually exclusive. Both conditions must hold. What part of the conjunction "and" do you not understand? If they didn't intend for both conditions to hold, there is a perfectly good conjunction that could have used "or". If allowing something that is useful, but not necesssary is permitted - we should be allowed to have lexan windows, RR shocks, alternate pistons for hard to locate stock pistons, the ability to swap out prone to break quickly suspensions bits for parts that never were on that car when it left the factory. All of that crap is useful. Hell, I'd like to make fiberglass parts matching the stock, break in a stiff wind fenders and header panel on my car. that sure as shinola would be useful, but I recognize the slippery slope on allowing that modification.

I'm allowed to run put different shocks/struts in the car as long as they mount to the same location. Why shouldn't I be allowed to put a lexan windshield in the car as well - provided I make no other modificaton? Answer with a coherent explaination that relies on the class philosophy that allows one, but not the other. Neither are necessary, but both are useful.

Let's see exactly how far from the founding document the current IT rules lie. Someone must have the original rule set sitting around. Nor are those making the decisions all that keen with their attention to detail - kee-rist, somewhere along the evolution of this thing, they dropped out the allowance for a fire extinguisher! We're all illegal.

A modification gets added either because the original rule can no longer be enforced (see ECUs) or because cost containment no longer is an issue (someday RR shocks will be IT-legal) or because the modification doesn't have a slippery slope (when does fender flaring stop being flaring and becomes a new fender? Where's the line in the sand on that).

[lateapex911]

This is cracking me up.. 16 years of running SRF tires,now the tires are not Dot , same relative speed(alittle slow)and the desk racers have a cow*.
The tire safety value is not in question. It is well within its' design parameters. The SRf is lighter than the ministock. MIni stocks race as light as 1800# and as heavy as 2550#.(same tire). There is no logical reason to exclude a proven,tire ,(available), just because it lacks the DOT tag.
This is specific tire request, "SRF Goodyear", for cars that can run on 13in wheels. This is not a request for race slicks!!
They will not win against ant 40/45/50series Dot race rubber,unless the driver is very poor.
You can repeal the rule,if My Son beats you on these tires!!!
If I could get used Hoosiers, I would. The set I have now is old.( 225/45/13):>
The SRF national guys take off these semi- treaded tires because they slow down about a tenth, the second time out. (But stay at that speed for the rest of the tire life) I get 800laps onour minstocker with these tires, (in a bigger size, 23/8/13).
I would not buy any new Goodyears. The same tire, but larger, (23/8/13) cost 108$ at our local circle track. 168$$??
I have 15 in wheels and a SM. The VW slows down, as the roll out gets bigger. 13s are faster.
Much to do about nothing. MM

Wow.

You're right about one thing.

Much ado about nothing.

So, you want cheap tires, and you aren't concerned with winning, but you don't like the 15' size because they are too slow... hmmmm...see a conflict here? you're asking an entire category to change a rule, but you're not willing to try to work around your issue.

also, read and think more .

In my post, i said I had a basement full of tires..I run an RX-7....on 13" rims, in the exact size you need. I sold a bunch last fall, and I'm looking to sell more. I went chasing lap records and wins last year, and I went thru some tire sets...most have between 7 and 11 cycles on them.

You have options, but i just don't see making a change to a ruleset that opens the category to unintended consequences as one of the better options.

*Oh, by the way...this "Desk racer" towed his car from CT to: New Hampshire, Watkins Glen NY, Lime Rock, CT, Southern New jersey, Pocono PA, Mid Ohio, and Road Atlanta in GA, broke track records at every track except one, and finished the season with 7 wins 4 seconds and a third in 12 races. And I know what it's like to race on a budget. In my first year racing I drove the actual race car (also my street car) TO the track ON the ONE set of Toyo R tires I raced on, and slept on the ground at places like Watkins Glen, Lime Rock and NHIS.

[Z3_GoCar]

....Anybody who comes up with a way to control that cost should get a Nobel Prize...

Dick, I don't think you get a vote on the Nobel Prize commitee :)

If tire cost control were a goal then maybe take a cue from auto-crossers and limit tire tread wear to greater than xxx.

[mossaidis]

I love these threads - reading them become religious experiences...


With minor mods (window clips, fire system, etc), a Golf can run in Prod classes and be legal on the SRF tires.

I think this is your *simple* answer. Yes really.


If tire cost control were a goal then maybe take a cue from auto-crossers and limit tire tread wear to greater than xxx.

Clap Clap.. there's merit in that statement and *NOT* (edit) just because I was an auto-crosser. I wonder if manufacturers would eventually change treadwear ratings and long wear if SCCA made a move like that.


...I drove the actual race car (also my street car) TO the track ON the ONE set of Toyo R tires I raced on, and slept on the ground at places like Watkins Glen, Lime Rock and NHIS.

Ditto... ah the memories.

[JohnRW]

Moreover, the GCR is very clearly - they cannot be mutually exclusive. Both conditions must hold. What part of the conjunction "and" do you not understand? If they didn't intend for both conditions to hold, there is a perfectly good conjunction that could have used "or".

You're avoiding acknowledging the difference between coordinating conjunctions and correlative conjunctions. If it's a coordinating conjunction, it CAN be mutually exclusive.

Why do I think it's a coordinating conjunction ? Easy...take out the "useful and" in the GCR statement:

"It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car."

...would then become:

"It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those necessary to construct a safe race car."

That language fits your interpretation...but that's not what the GCR says. Why is it written "useful and necessary" ? Because they're meant to be mutually exclusive. You might desperately want it to be a correlative conjunction (like a logical "and" statement), but there is no evidence that it's meant to be that way, and ample reason to think that it was purposely written to separate those two items.

You've tried too fine a parse here.

[JohnRW]

Moreover, the GCR is very clearly - they cannot be mutually exclusive. Both conditions must hold. What part of the conjunction "and" do you not understand? If they didn't intend for both conditions to hold, there is a perfectly good conjunction that could have used "or".

You have a different understanding of coordinating conjunctions than I do. Take out the "useful and" in the GCR statement:

"It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car."

...would then become:

"It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those necessary to construct a safe race car."

That second language fits your interpretation...but that's not what the GCR says. Why is it written "useful and necessary" ? Because the writers had the idea that "useful" and "necessary" were different definitions. You might desperately want it to be like a logical "and" statement, but there is no evidence that it's meant to be that way, and reason to think that it was purposely written to separate those two items. Your example of an "or" statement is...well...just plain silly.

You've tried too fine a parse here.

And once again, IT.com decends into mind-numbing effluvia.

[mustanghammer]

Dick, I don't think you get a vote on the Nobel Prize commitee :)

If tire cost control were a goal then maybe take a cue from auto-crossers and limit tire tread wear to greater than xxx.

Unfortunately this idea only worked for a little while. Originally there were some really cheap options for classes that ran tread wear limited tires. However several manufacturers starting building tires for the class and now these tires are not all that cheap. The do last longer than DOT R comp tires but the value is going away as the classes get more popular and the competition between tire companies heat up.

Sounds familar doesn't it.....

[lateapex911]

For many, the tire budget is somewhat manageable...buy the tires you need, use them until they aren't what you need, then sell them to folks looking to do testing, run on a limited budget, or find themselves able to win because the competitive realities in their area allow less than optimized setups.

For that to work, of course, the sizes need to be popular.

The second way of maximizing the use, is to mount the tires on an extra set of wheels and use them for learning new tracks, HPDEs where you're doing engine testing, or instructing, etc.

That requires up front investment in wheels. (another reason I'm not a fan of allowing classes to change wheel widths), but in the end the investment allows full use of the rubber, and helps the package go faster.

[Dano77]

um nevermind.:cool: