Submitting today. I’ll let ya know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Submitting today. I’ll let ya know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
Data? I love data! Please post the actual data that includes the following -- temperature, number of heat cycles on the tire, number of laps run on the tire, tire brand and type and lap times for the session.Quote:
Originally Posted by XelderX
Because what I see are stories, not data.
Here's a story. We bought and scrubbed 10 tires for the VIR 13-Hour. Scrubbed them in and set them aside. We practiced/qualified and ran about 50% of the race on the first four. Changed to the next 4. First set of tires had 3 heat cycles. Second set had 2 heat cycles. Last 2 tires had 1 heat cycle. Next time we did a typical race weekend, we used those tires and they performed pretty much like you would expect tires with a couple of heat cycles to perform. The 4 tires that ran the equivalent of 7 sprint weekends (7-hours on track) were like 2 weekend tires.
That's not data. It's a story. It's true, but still a story.
Tracking #24834Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Amy
I am writing regarding the proposal to require a 200TW tire in IT. I am opposed at this time as I believe the asserted benefits do not exist or do not exceed the cost of such a proposal.
1. For many cars, there is no 200TW tire available in the size they currently use. For these drivers to compete in their current cars, they will need to invest in new wheels at a minimum. The change in tire size will impact the effectiveness of their gearing and will require the purchase, if available, a different final drive gear. Finally, this change may necessitate changing suspension setups and tuning and require the purchase of new shocks and springs. These expenditures will significantly reduce or eliminate the proposed savings. Furthermore, some drivers will simply leave IT and make the switch to other categories; going counter to the suggestion that the tire rule will increase IT participation.
2. A 200TW rule will upset the competitive balance in the category, particularly among the classes with smaller engine displacement. The change will benefit higher torque cars with a wider powerband and harm those cars that rely more on momentum. The classification “process” (The PROCESS) would need to be recalibrated and we face the prospect of another IT Great Realignment and the subsequent appropriate weight wars. I acknowledge that the IT rules do not guaranty competitiveness, but it is one thing when a driver selects a car that isn’t competitive and a different thing when a significant rule change of dubious value does it.
3. This rule likely will impact the number of cross-over entries between IT and other categories (double dippers). Under the current rules, double dippers only need one set of wheels and tires. For example, an ITA CRX can double-dip in FP and, while not running at the front of the field, will find FP cars to race. Similar, many Spec Miata cars double dip in ITA. It is my belief that a 200TW rule will stop this double dipping – a significant source of revenue to the Regions.
4. It is doubtful that the rule will cause a significant number of cars running with 200TW rules to enter SCCA events. Many of these cars are no longer IT legal. The format between a sprint race and a multi-driver endurance race is different. These other sanctioning bodies have flexible classing rules that do more to ensure a car is somewhat competitive in a class, but SCCA is extremely inflexible in this regard.
5. What these drivers hope to accomplish – a smaller tire budget – is something they already could accomplish. They choose to run the most expensive tire that lasts the fewest weekends because it offers the greatest competitive advantage. These drivers could reduce their tire budget by purchasing less expensive tires initially or not replacing their tires as often. Few tires are discarded because they are unusable; they are discarded because they are less competitive.
6. I am not an expert in the testing of tires, but based on information from consumer reports and other tire websites, it appears that tire manufacturers may give their products a lower rating then the tested rating and that they do so, particularly, for competition and performance tires. This is a marketing ploy because racers are gullible – they assume a lower TW rating equates to more grip. Consequently, the 40TW rating on Hoosier R7s (purple crack) may be inaccurate and purple crack could be a much higher rated tire. I want to emphasis that I could not confirm this assertion.
7. I am not an expert in the testing of tires, but based on information from consumer reports and other tire websites, it appears that between two tires utilizing identical compounds, the TW rating is proportional to the amount of tread. That is to say, a purple crack tire with twice the tread of the current purple crack is eligible to receive twice the treadwear rating. If this is true, then given that SCCA competitors are the major consumer of purple crack, it is very likely that Hoosier will create a 200TW tire even more expensive than purple crack and lasting approximately as long.
8. This is a significant change to the category that may have major negative impacts on it. Caution demands that, before making this SCCA-wide change, it be implemented at the region or division level to demonstrate that the claim that it will attract new drivers is true. For this to be a true test, this regional/divisional class must be identical to the IT category rules except for mandating a 200TW tire or greater. I.e. IT200 where every car competing in IT200 would be legal to compete in the corresponding Improved Category.
If the claimed cost savings and influx of competitors is demonstrated through a regional/division class, I am likely to change my opinion. Without such a demonstration, I am firmly opposed.
After running recently with some very fast ITR and ITS cars in my session, I have a hard time believing that any of the faster IT classes would be willing to give up sticky tires.
The Blethens primarily run street tires on their RX-8s and have done well for themselves. ;)
I've thought long and hard about this... Still hate it.
Jeff, have you researched, or had experience with the tires being discussed?Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjanos
I suspect YOU will be the only guy shaving them. ;)
And while you assert everyone is buying hoosiers like water, some are not. it takes a program, but you can manage to make a set last and be fast....for a long time.
True, many guys have the $ and prefer not to twist their brains managing a tire program.
J
Interesting. In the NER region, the IT7 guys decided to go this direction. It required new wheels, because as you point out, all tires aren't made in all sizes. So, a few guys bought in...basically the entire group of IT7 guys (except me*). At the time, every race would see about 3 cars. maybe 4. Now? There are almost 10 current IT-7 competitors, and about 7 or 8 are in any given race. All that have voiced their opinion (A couple are on this board) say they like the racing better. Less work managing a tire program, and less money expended per race. AND, most of all, they fell the change has attracted new blood to the class, and ....therefore.....they now have better racing.Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjanos
Now, I know this won't impress you, lol....
...any NER IT-7 guys, feel free to set me straight if I have mis characterized teh situation.
* I chose not to convert. Most of the group concentrated on NHMS and maybe a couple other tracks. I, on the other hand, went to NHMS maybe every other year or, at most, once a year. I went to Lime Rock, Watkins Glen, Summit, NJMP, VIR, Atlanta, Mid Ohio, etc looking for new experiences, competition and track records. So I wasn't a good fit. But, I was the exception.
I believe the IT-7 attraction just begins at the street tires though. It seems like the group has fairly basic cars and are not taking the prep to the limits. Meaning they have modest build costs, not constantly trying to out prep the cars and seeking expensive HP gains. Assuming they continue to keep you out of the class (your car was on the other spectrum) and are able to keep that mentality as new people enter...that's the attraction at least in my perspective. We'll see how long they can keep those cars going and sourcing parts though.
Just as a data point....my friend has compiled entry data for the Solo National Championships the last few years.
Registration just opened for the event yesterday. More people have registered for Street class in the first 14 hours than did total for street class in 2014.
There is no Goldilocks tire for my car. The idea has surface merit. Someone needs to test the water to see if the promised benefits are real.Quote:
Originally Posted by lateapex911
I've been associated with this club since 1973 -- if there is an unfair advantage to be had, drivers always will seek to find it. It's simply the nature of the beast. I've seen IT guys using the super-expensive fuel at VIR. For what they spent in fuel, they could do a track day and actually go faster.Quote:
I suspect YOU will be the only guy shaving them. ;)
I wrote my letter a few days ago opposing this. I had to guess the reason for this proposal as still don't see it stated what problem this is trying so solve. Others such as Matt Downing have stated it well already, so I'll keep this short. I just don't see why you need a rule for this. If you want to run those tires, run them, but don't make it a rule.
If that actually worked the SCCA wouldn't need so many classes. In fact why have different classes within IT. Let's just have ITR and everything goes there.Quote:
Originally Posted by RX555
We break it down to other classes because we want to run other cars, but keep some level of competitiveness. That helps participation. We care about being competitive. If we didn't, why would we spend so much time building to a ruleset when we could just do whatever we wanted and run untimed track days?
We race SCCA because it's the best place for competition. We want to spend less money on tires so we can run more races.
I use the slightly more expensive fuel at VIR (93 octane or whatever the lowest is). Mostly because it's convenient. I know exactly how many gallons I want and the pump counts it out for me. I don't own enough fuel jugs to get through a weekend and the cost of having to drive the tow vehicle around to get more fuel pretty much offsets the cost of track fuel. Of course that will all change when I finally get my ECU installed and tuned.Quote:
Originally Posted by jjjanos
id be fine with one IT class if that what was already built. Cars would be classed with modifications to equalize the cars (best they can like current IT classes) and we would have all selected the car with modifications we liked to race. This would do nothing to control costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by XelderX
We have a set of IT classes to try and limit the modifications and provide a cheap place for races to play. Some cars are classes better than others, some cars have superior aftermarket support, and some are being raced for the love of the marquee.
Wanting to force the class to street tires in an effort to save money so more races can be run won’t work. The rules creep has already started with talk of changing the tire size rule to accommodate all classes on street tires. Any savings on street tires will be spent on new rims (2-3 sets min per racer) and could (and will) take years to recoup. And the rule actually requires an outlay of additional money at the start to get going. The exact opposite effect of what’s proposed. Pissing off the existing racers at the hope of attracting new ones is a bad idea. Even once that initial expense is offset, what have we accomplished? People who were running mid pack are still running mid pack but supposedly saving a few hundred dollars a year on race rubber?
I'd propose a new (old) class (yes - another class!) called Showroom Stock. True showroom stock as it was back in the beginning. Completely stock vehicles with ONLY a cage, race seat, belts, window net, fire system, and any paint job/number you want. Stock tires, brakes, bushings, shocks, drivetrain... Mandate a common street tire for the class and go. :)
2-3 sets minimum? Dude, I've had one set of rims for my car in the 3 years I've raced it and those rims cost me $600...half the cost of a set of Hoosiers. Buying 15" rims isn't an issue when you can basically get a free set every time you buy a set of street tires over what Hoosiers cost.
Two sets of rims with race tires mounted and a set of rain tires. (Three sets minimum) You'll burn any cost savings having a tire or two mounted at the track, so at least two additional rims are a necessity (to me) for race rubber.
I bought two sets of gently used sm7 tires for $530 shipped that can last a complete season.
I borrowed a pair of rims to do some testing with, but I only have 4 rims for the car. I can't run enough races to have a shot at a season championship so if there is a good chance of rain I don't race. It's way cheaper and there is just too much of a risk for extra damage making a mistake on a wet track. I don't race if I don't have enough tire left to get through the weekend.Quote:
Originally Posted by downingracing
I started out on used SM7s, then a season of used R7s. This year was my first year where I purchased brand new R7s. I run a 225 front tire so SM takeoffs don't do me much good on that half of the car.
Listen, I get it. You don't want to run street tires, but you need to look at the big picture. The trends have already started to play out. I came from Solo Street Prepared category. It's basically the autocross equivalent of IT. It's a Rcomp class. My car used to be a nationally competitive autocross car. It's transition to IT was very easy as most of the car didn't have to be changed. I still use the same suspension and drivetrain. Street Prepared autocross is dying. When I started out in F Street Prepared the first year at Nationals there were over 30 entries. Last year there was half that many. It's been on a steady decline. All the Street Prepared classes (production cars on R-comp classes...sound familiar?) have been dying. Despite that steady decline Solo Nationals has been setting attendance records every year. So where are the extra entries going? Racing slick classes aren't really seeing substantial growth. The answer is classes using street tires...by a huge amount.
So we can all sit here and debate about the costs of this or the reasons for that. What we all have to realize is that the current IT philosophy is no longer appealing. You can watch it's Solo sister slowly withering to nothing. Something has to change and the powers that be are looking for something. If street tires aren't the answer then it doesn't really matter anyway. The IT philosophy is no longer appealing in a meaningful way.
If IT dies off then most of us have few choices for racing within the SCCA without it getting more expensive...either in car purchase price or running costs. Those who can will, but for most of us we will have to find alternatives and sadly it probably won't be in SCCA sprint racing.
IT is not dying off. If there is one thing the SCCA is good at, it's keeping classes around for ever! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by XelderX
I still find the IT philosophy appealing. We (SCCA) need to do a better job of marketing what we're selling and getting people involved. From what I see - many people run other clubs because they want to run what they have built to their liking and they can do that. They get their ass kicked (because building to the rules will beat building what you like every time), but they get to play with their car and have fun. Some are even competitive until someone comes along and builds to the rule set. Other people do the LeChump thing because of the perception that it's cheaper. (It's not -been there/done that) The potential track time is big. But on any given weekend, there are only a handful of teams who can win and everyone else is just there to have fun. If you want to race with the top amateur racers in the country, the SCCA is where you come to play.
I don't see the trend you see. I've used street tires running some Chump races and they suck. If anyone is looking to just race and have fun, they can use street tires now and save whatever money they want. Racers will always look for any advantage they can get, so requiring street tires just means more research and development to find the best 200tw tire and setup (suspension/shaving/heat cycles). Everyone keeps saying shaving does nothing - I'd like the hard data showing that. I'm guessing shaving to 1-2/32nds could make a difference in a sprint race. One person shaves tires, everyone has to do it (this is all about making everyone competitive correct?)... Or finding the 'hot' tire for a track/condition.
When everyone has 10/10ths builds, tires can be the last .02 to make a difference. Most people use tires as a crutch for poor driving. Anyone on new R (or A) 7s can pickup a few seconds a lap. I've beat many people on new Hoosiers while I was on used Hankooks. I plan to beat most people running used SM7s this year regardless of what rubber they run. :)
I'll be at the Solo National Championships in September. If shaving street tires got you any gains someone would be doing it. I've been running them for two years and haven't seen anyone shaving them in that time. People were shaving the old Toyos, but those aren't really used anymore. I'll be there on Bridgestone RE71s with just a few runs on them to scrub them in. I suspect the 700 or so other street tire competitors will be on unshaven tires too.
I don't know autocross, but I'm guessing the heat and beating tires take are different from road racing. So what works for autocross may not work for road race. If this street tire mandate becomes the rule, it will be some time before anyone shares data on what works (shaving/heat cycles) for each tire brand. Racers dont always share when an advantage is on the table. :)
Overheating the front tires in 60 seconds is pretty common in my Corvette. We compete a lot on concrete which generates more grip. Think ambient to 160* in a minute. I would love to have straights as long as most road courses have to help manage tire temperature. I think the street tires will be the same or easier to make last on road courses.Quote:
Originally Posted by downingracing
Here is one issue that I'm not happy about and it could skew people's data with regards to street tires. If you run street tires on a track with a lot of race tire rubber laid down the track will feel "greasy". The race tire rubber and street tire rubber don't work well together. Basically the street tires will perform better on a green track than one with a lot of race tire laps on it.
That's a pretty big concern given that every other class running a race weekend will be on at least r-conp if not full slicks.Quote:
Originally Posted by XelderX
Happens at the drag strip as well. "Street tires" or drag radials will pull the rubber up from the starting line leaving bald spots. Had a nice chat (and beers!) with Bill Bader Jr at Norwalk, now Summit Raceway during a Sport Compact event. YEARS ago. Not sure if the newer drag radial compounds, like the street tires SCCA racers now use, play along better. Need a cool Friday night to go check them out :)Quote:
Originally Posted by XelderX
The gentlemen's agreements to run a certain tire in some Regions has worked pretty well. I still don't think 200tw should be a rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by XelderX
Having raced IT for about ten years, tire budgets have never been a concern to me. I was never the fastest car and always used my tires longer than I should have. I normally buy one set a year for 4 or so races and use the previous year's set for practice. I think there are quite a few IT racers that also use tires as long as they can. I only recently started buying Hoosiers and that was only because of availability and age of the Toyo/Hankook/Kumho I used to buy.
If a person can't afford a set of R comps once a year or so, not sure club racing is for them.
As an aside, I'll never get the mentality of not racing because it rains. Some real fun can be had and it will make you a better driver.
I don't run in the rain because I don't have rain tires. If it was just damp and Rcomps were still the right tire then I would. So far in three years I've only not ran one race on purpose because of rain. All but one car in my entire group made the same choice. Hoosier rain tires are magic, but have very short useable lives. For me it just hasn't been a good financial move to buy them, maybe not even use them if we get lucky, and then throw them away because they age out in a year or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by RX555
To your point about one set of Rcomps a year. I can afford that, but just like you that only gets me a handful of races every season. For me that means I run VIR three times a year and that's pretty much it. I want to race more, but having to ration it out because tires get used up keeps me from doing more races. I went through this exact scenario in Solo Street Prepared. Every year Hoosier prices would creep up. Competitors left and the chances for contingency dried up. I started not going to events to save tires. I'm now in a street tire class where I can afford two sets of tires a year and do four times the number of events. Contingency is a possibility again (Bridgestone took good care of us). We have three times the number of entries as my old Street Prepared class.
As I said before, I would be very interested to try the Hankook DOT-R tires and participate in a gentleman's agreement, but getting everyone to participate (like IT7) at every track in multiple east coast regions seems unlikely.
my experience is the wheel cost is not significant, when we in IT7 went to 15" Nittos from 13" Hoosiers the cost for 4 wheels and tires was about the same price as a set of Hoosiers.
the way we structured the rules in New England is you can run any tire but you only get year end points on Nittos. That way the new guys can race with the shit they have laying around.
even with my positive experience the main reason i support this is having some differentiation between class. there is so little difference between T, ST, Limited Prep Prod and IT that it just makes sense to me to have classes that offer a different experience.
I had IT cars when this was first considered , about 6 yrs ago. I now run Prod cars only . I really have no dog , (I miss my Dog)
These are my observations ;
I have been racing on 200 TW tires for 8 yrs. The smaller sizes can get greasy when over driven and asking for repeated turns. Like Roebling road on 205/15 tires. The answer is to use large tires and keep the outer edges cool. The2800# /300WHP , truck runs on 315/17 rears and 255/17 fronts. 10.5 and 9 in wide rims. They last as long as 40 hrs and as short as 14rs. The brand matters less so then the size/loading/track conditions..
Considering that, the optimal tire is large and the wheel larger . 245/40/15 are run on 8 or 9in rims. For a SM style/ weight car.
I have no idea how IT would allow wide wheels. and keep them inside the fenders.
I think the right way for IT to use these would be to have a transition year with some weight adjustment for the Hoes and the 200s. I have run the same cars on both tires and the delta is about 6% weight turns out pretty close. ( at 110HP2200#)
Maybe remove 3% from the 200 cars and add 3% for the Hoes. I think the Hossiers will cover the weight even at 6%. But that can be changed or the 200 can be mandated after a year.
13 option ;https://simpletire.com/federal-p255-...0aAkEaEALw_wcB
That's also a very good point I was thinking about yesterday, but didn't get around to posting before I went to sleep. The new crop of 200tw tires don't like to be pinched on narrow wheels. They perform best with proper width rims. I think most people would be fine with the IT allowed rim widths already in the rules since most of us are restricted by the contact patch/fender rule first anyway. My car can fit a lot of tire up front legally, but eventually it's depreciating returns as it's more rotating weight and more drag.
Letter #24914; For a one year trial period ,Please make 200 TW tires competitive by reducing weight 5% and allowing a wider wheel by 1 in per class .
For 2019 add weight to non 200 TW tires of 5% while keeping the prior 5% discount for 200 TW. This allows current tires to be run out and promotes the 200 tires.
Weight break won’t work for many cars that can’t currently make min weight. And my ITA car is close to 5% over weight as is, so I won’t get any slower running Hoosiers (since I’m running them now).
Then please post a letter stating that and maybe weight should simply be added for the transition year.
Already sent my letter against. Not interested in a transition year. ;)
Then combine T, ST Limited Prep Prod and IT into a single category. Instead of 45 cars spread across 15 classes, you have 45 cars spread over 5.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickita15
We can equalize performance by giving mods points. Too many points and you move up a class.
I mean, if we are going to be arguing about reclassifying cars because low HP cars are going to be killed by torque hogs, we might as well do a full nuclear exchange in terms of debating the finer points of whether an engine swap is the same as running Hoosiers versus TW200. I mean, what could go wrong?
Let's be honest.
Those of us who need to maintain momentum and consequently go in deeper and come out harder all the time, don't have a problem with premature use of their rubber. We can make what we're driving hit the apex over and over again without expending our rubber.
The TW200 tire rule is favored by people who are compensating by driving high HP. high torque cars. I get it, you need the dulling sensation of low grade rubber so you can last longer. What you need to do is slow down a bit, don't get so excited and you can make the rubber last longer.
<Ducks>
I was with you until you said the street tires are supported by high hp cars argument. the handling advantage of a good handling car is magnified on lesser tires, and top speed is higher, too. but I've just driven the things for 4 years, on my IT car, in Hoosier fields. I don't know what I'm talking about.
and, FWIW, I'm largely against the proposal. Not becasue the tires suck, I like them. It's because of the difficulties, real and percieved, and the lack of REAL differentiation of IT or a clear path for those in IT who DO NOT want to continue with 200TW IT to remain competative with minimal added cost or modification. I AM in support of a newer class between Touring and IT specs using 200TWs, as a path for street AX and trackday guys to come in to club racing.
the crapcan series success has a lot more to do with "different than SCCA" than the tires. the tires are part of it, and there's a psychological component there, I'm sure, but they aren't the magic bullet.
what these tires WOULD DO once everything has stabilized around them is reduce the benefit of spending money on tires vs. those who stretch their budgets. anything we can do to reduce the benefit of spending money helps bunch the field up. I loved driving on 200s my package: 205/50R15 Dunlop ZII and ZIIss, 15x6 and 15x7 wheels (2017 rules change) ITB MR2 at 2340-2400 lbs, 400/450 springs, Koni RACE inserts, ST bars, ~105 hp, stock 4.3 final drive. They force you to be smoother, are easier to recover when you over do it, and don't suffer as much from lockups or slides as the DOT-Rs. they were plenty of fun and MADE ME A BETTER DRIVER. I got to my old SM6 times at sebring on them, and when I bolt on R7s now I am a lot faster than I used to be (with room to grow because I'm not used to them). and I never had to worry about heat cycles or weather or not I had tires. do they go off? yes. they slime up in a session (can be cooled) and they eventually hit an age wall (may be improved with storage) where they suddenly just SUCK even though they look fine. I got 3 years, 1/2 of a lemons race, and 2 weekends on a civic wagon at RRR on 2.5 sets (the half set is the one that sat for a long time and gave up on me - but I still ran them for 2 hours in a Lemons race). I saved a BUNCH of money vs. hoosiers.
But even knowing all of that, I think forcing them on the class with no other changes to prep rules, overall club racing strategy, or category philosophy is a bad idea. I'm not against what some people envision here, I'm against the idea that this is a solution. we have problems, 200TW tires may be part of the answer, but I think piecemealing parts of a solution outside of a cohesive strategy can do more harm than good.
Read the post again. I wasn't talking about tires..... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chip42
Having spectated at the 24-hour race at VIR (per the boy's request), those who envision cross-overs are smoking crack. If I read the rules correctly, Champcar requires the removal of all glass except the windshield. Anyone motivated enough to pull glass (without breaking it) and then put it back in (without breaking it) and then take it out again (without breaking), won't be put off by Hoosiers. Hell, it probably would be cheaper to buy new purple crack each weekend then it would be to screw around with the glass constantly.
d'oh
I agree WRT crossover from LeChAmp. sounds good but it's not likely.
A bunch of you wrote letters in response to the 200TW proposal and should have gotten a note that those letters have been reviewed and sent to the CRB. The ITAC submitted our recomendation to them last night and cleared all of the letters (as No Action Required) along with it.
I'm not going to comment further as there has been no decision by the CRB on the recomendation but once I know the final decision I'll pass it along here.