Your Thoughts on Mandating 200+TW "Street Tires" in Improved Touring?

[raffaelli]

There are two primary reasons I see 200TW tires being useful to Improved Touring:

1) Category Distinction and Differentiation. What differentiates IT from other categories? Prep isn't massively different than LP Prod, and Touring is inching - leaping - its presence away from its Showroom Stock roots. IT tires are no different than Touring or Super Touring. IT doesn't have wings and splitters are limited. IT does not go to the org's biggest event of the year.

If asked to explain why run Improved Touring instead of any other class, what's your answer?

200TW tires would clearly differentiate the category in a significant way, something that is not done by any other category.

2) Attraction from other groups. There is a large and growing population of racers out there in series and with orgs that do not allow tires with a TW lower than 200. Limiting the class to 200 makes it attractive to them. Those orgs do that specifically for costs purposes. No one can legitimately argue that a $250 10-cycle tire can ever cost less, long- or short-term, than a $120 more-than-10-cycle tire. And while outliers can never be eliminated (really, you're going to shave your tires so low that they'll only last 2 sessions?) they can safely be ignored. Because outliers are not for whom we make decisions.

Improved Touring needs to make positive changes that will differentiate it from the existing crowd and make itself attractive to those not interested in chasing the Runoffs-of-the-Year. And this would be a really easy and cost-effective way to do it, one that would be quite easy to revert if it didn't work out.

And, really, 3) because those that actually want to spend the big money on consistently replacing fast tires probably don't really give a crap about Improved Touring anyway...

Food for thought.

I was thinking no on this idea until Greg's post. I'd like to try it.

(even though it may make double dipping difficult)

[downingracing]

The crossover argument doesn’t hold water. Cars from other series (Le/Chump) aren’t prepped to IT rules. So for them to run in an IT class, they require modification to even be legal. And many of them have taken the cars well past the point of being ‘returned’ to IT legal. Cars that successfully make it to legal, will (probably) be closer to stock/legal than built/legal. Tires won’t make them competitive. Having an IT(ez) class for cars from these series to run in seems like the best option to promote crossover. No changes required (or veery minimum) and they all compete on 200tw tires. Competitive with ‘like’ cars and can try SCCA.

Requiring 200tw tires will limit crossover within SCCA (that is already happening). Spec Miatas will need multiple sets of rims with different tires to run both ITA and SM. Other IT cars will need the same to double dip with STL, STU, and Prod.

I’ve spent a fair amount of time running ITA. When I was winning or at the front of the pack (minus Mosers and Ruck), I ran hankooks. Guys chasing me were on Hoosiers. Tires are important, but there’s much more to being competitive than tires.

I’d ask: What’s the problem we’re trying to solve?

If it’s how to get crossover from other series, we need to look at license requirements (having run some Chump, you don’t want most of those folks participating without at least a little formal training). Then look at car classifications and determine the best path requiring the least modification for these cars.

If it’s controlling costs in IT classes, as many have said, you can’t keep people who want to spend money from spending it. Limit one area and they will spend in other areas. Good to look at options to control cost, but this tire mandate could actually increase costs for those crossing from class to class.

If it’s something else, I’d like to know what it is. It feels like we’re trying to justify a solution without firmly identifying the problem.

[jjjanos]

The crossover argument doesn’t hold water. Cars from other series (Le/Chump) aren’t prepped to IT rules. So for them to run in an IT class, they require modification to even be legal. And many of them have taken the cars well past the point of being ‘returned’ to IT legal. Cars that successfully make it to legal, will (probably) be closer to stock/legal than built/legal. Tires won’t make them competitive. Having an IT(ez) class for cars from these series to run in seems like the best option to promote crossover. No changes required (or veery minimum) and they all compete on 200tw tires. Competitive with ‘like’ cars and can try SCCA.

Requiring 200tw tires will limit crossover within SCCA (that is already happening). Spec Miatas will need multiple sets of rims with different tires to run both ITA and SM. Other IT cars will need the same to double dip with STL, STU, and Prod.

I’ve spent a fair amount of time running ITA. When I was winning or at the front of the pack (minus Mosers and Ruck), I ran hankooks. Guys chasing me were on Hoosiers. Tires are important, but there’s much more to being competitive than tires.

I’d ask: What’s the problem we’re trying to solve?

If it’s how to get crossover from other series, we need to look at license requirements (having run some Chump, you don’t want most of those folks participating without at least a little formal training). Then look at car classifications and determine the best path requiring the least modification for these cars.

If it’s controlling costs in IT classes, as many have said, you can’t keep people who want to spend money from spending it. Limit one area and they will spend in other areas. Good to look at options to control cost, but this tire mandate could actually increase costs for those crossing from class to class.

If it’s something else, I’d like to know what it is. It feels like we’re trying to justify a solution without firmly identifying the problem.

Amen! Hallelujah! Exactly.

[jjjanos]

Cost savings? Where? You have just suggested opening up wheel sizes. I and and a bunch of the smaller tire guys will need to buy new final drives or new cars.
we will shave the hell out of these tires negating the per unit savings.
we won’t attract many, if any at all, cars from the other groups.

And as icing on the cake, you have completely upset the competitive balance in ITB and probably ITA. Lower torque, better handling cars will be screwed because the fatter, higher torque cars probably won’t be hurt as much. Think I’m wrong about that? We’ll have ya done any thinking about it at all?

needs of the many over the needs of the few? Sounds more like the needs of ITS drivers over the rest of the category.

Before you make a change of this magnitude, I suggest you create a 200TW region class and see how many of your predictions, particularly cross-overs happen. Not bracket, but ITR200, ITS200, ITA200.

[jjjanos]

Oh, has anyone actually researched what 200TW means?

We have no idea what the true TW of purple crack might be. Manufacturers are allowed to put LOWER ratings on their tires. For competition tires, manufacturers under rate their tires because we are stupid and equate lower rating with stickier and faster tires.

I would also like confirmation whether consumer reports and other places are correct when they assert that the rating of two identical compound tires is proportional to their original tread depth. Because if those statements are true, the only thing this accomplishes will be purple crack that you can shave to get the old purple crack.

[Greg Amy]

Jeff, what's your letter number?

[XelderX]

I'm just going to go ahead and tell everyone....

I will laugh out loud and in your face if you show up on shaved 200tw tires. Not to shame you into hopefully spending less money so we can all be more "equal", but simply because you are dumb and wasted a bunch of money.

If you've generated a negative opinion of "street tires" based off of data from a decade ago you need to do some research. What a lot of you aren't realizing is that some of us have already went through this transition once with the autocross Stock/Street change. We have experience on a personal level and data on a club level. Most of the negatives I'm hearing come from people with none of the former and a refusal to see the latter.

[jjjanos]

Jeff, what's your letter number?

Submitting today. I’ll let ya know.

[jjjanos]

Jeff, what's your letter number?

Tracking #24834

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.

[lateapex911]

Oh, has anyone actually researched what 200TW means?

We have no idea what the true TW of purple crack might be. Manufacturers are allowed to put LOWER ratings on their tires. For competition tires, manufacturers under rate their tires because we are stupid and equate lower rating with stickier and faster tires.

I would also like confirmation whether consumer reports and other places are correct when they assert that the rating of two identical compound tires is proportional to their original tread depth. Because if those statements are true, the only thing this accomplishes will be purple crack that you can shave to get the old purple crack.

Jeff, have you researched, or had experience with the tires being discussed?
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

[jjjanos]

Jeff, have you researched, or had experience with the tires being discussed?

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.

I suspect YOU will be the only guy shaving them.

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.