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

[Greg Amy]

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.

[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?

[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]

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

And this matters why?

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.

My apologies. I thought you were making a serious proposal. The tell was when you said racers won’t waste money to gain an advantage and we don’t create rules for outliers.

That is why we do not have the full range of blingy shocks that come with even a time-zone adjustment.
That’s why we do not have fuel testing because nobody is going to spend $75/gallons to win a race.
That is why we never worry about someone cheating because nobody would want to win that way.

ChumpAER guys are not skipping SCCA because of purple crack. They skip us because our rules are immense and restrictive. They can also turn any POS dog into a better car by doing loads of modifications to make it competitive in a new bracket.

Not going to shave tires? Pull the other leg! That is the one with bells on it; you will get to her the ding.

Showroom stock guys, back in the day, shaved their tires like it was a first date. Look around the paddock — the drivers may have changed, but they are just as stupid about gaining an unfair advantage as the old bona-fide SS drivers.

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.

You mean that I will need to spend a boatload of money on new wheels, a new final drive and suspension setup and reserve the right to say “Psych!” Thanks!

I appreciate the effort to do something for a category that probably received a death blow from Topeka siphoning away our entrants, but be realistic about how stupid drivers are when it comes to an advantage.