Printable View
Conceptually, why is it...
That we spend scads of money on soft sticky tires, when a cheap hard compound tire could be mandated and used by all.
A reasonably priced nice-looking durable real racing tire that would keep eveyone on the same level playing field and save everyone lots and lots of money?
I have never understood why we play tire games at this level of the sport. Can someone explain the logic of it all for me?
Thanks,
Chris
We are going to a spec regional tire for the FF class next year in the SF regional races. Hoosier R60. $600 a set, and good for about 2 weekends!!! If my G.F. found out how much money i spent on my hobby i would be DEAD!!!
Sean
Most drivers want to have the increased grip of stickier tires. The key is to have a tire that is both durable and sticky. Hard to do, but it would be the best of both worlds. Having a tire that is durable but not sticky means more opportunity to spin out and damage your car. Of course it would put everyone on a level playing field, but then again, so does having a spec tire in a series. Kind of like what the F1000 Championship has done. They've got a spec tire that is sticky yet a 6 tire rule that limits your expense.
The unfortunate part is it doesn't matter if the tires are hard or soft, they all still cost around the same. Even if you wanted to try and get two weekends out of a set, the top guys are always going to go for new tires each weekend.
Mike
I'm a relic from the day when tires were hard. And lasted forever. Really, the only way to soften them was to use a solvent, which no one really did.
All worked well back then in regard to (defacto) spec tires. And they were cheap. Also, I think a manufacturer might makes the things to a hard and long lasting spec if there were enough of a market.
As to folks "liking grippier tires" -- what can one say? That last quarter lateral G is costing those folks (and everybody else) an astronomic amounts of dollars for the thrill.
I just wonder if using the lastest hot setup super-sticky three head-cycle tire isn't just a habitual thing. A very expensive bad habit acrued over the years.
Just think: Each six hundred dollar set of tires, if deleted from the equation, would allow people to spend six hundred dollars on other items on the car. Or... not spend it at all... and maybe move up in next racing year to a faster, neater catagory.
I dunno, seeking the latest baddest tire for lots of dollars makes no sense to me if there's a cheaper way of leveling the playing field. And there definitely is. That's the way it USED to be... and the racing was fantastic.
Regards,
Chris
Go back and read all of the threads surrounding Tom Valet's attempt to introduce a spec tire into FF. There is lots of interesting information there about how people feel and the realities from the past.
It boils down to there is not some magical hard tire out there that will be consistent for 10-20 heat cycles, especially on an FB. The tires are always going to be better when they are newer. The best that can be hoped for is to get a tire that can still be used for meaningful testing in the later cycles.
We tested the GY 255's on Brandon's car. They were hard and still had the mold lines on them after 3 cycles, but they were also horrible, horrible tires. They were not any fun to drive on, could not be brought to temperature and were going to require a lot of work to be able to do anything with them. I personally think they were a big part of why Schweitz destroyed his car. Thankfully, Jon changed the spec tire for the F1KCS.
My personal opinion is that a spec tire could have a place in a class that should be a lower cost option, like FF, but not in a class like FB. FB is never going to be a cheap class. FB has the capability to be cheaper than some of the classes that are slower but it will never be especially cheap.
Unless someone is running a tire that is not available to others, the playing field is leveled.Quote:
Originally Posted by TTMRacing
There really were tires that were so hard they lasted forever! They were about as sensitive to heat cycles as your street car is. They were absolutely stable.
Weitzenhoff would remember those days, I believe. I think he would have been just beginning to win races as the "gumballs" were making thier first entrance into the market place -- and increasing everyone's budget about 2x.
Spec tires can be made to be as stable and durable as street tires. All there needs to be is a demand. This would detract nothing -- NOTHING -- from the racing. In FB or any other catagory. (The old hard compounds were used on USRRC, CanAm and Indycars, for instance; and things were just great).
I don't we're interested in developing tires. I think we're interested in racing race cars. I say, take the tires (and the dollars spent on them) out of the equation.
I truly believe the use of throw-away tires is no more than a bad habit that people have grown used to.
Chris
It all depends of your point of view. If you're a relatively low budget racer, a longer lasting tire will save money while reducing the disadvantage to higher budget teams able to buy tires much more often. In other words, richer racers can buy new tires, but they wont have as big of an advantage.
It's good to reduce the performance gap between low and high budget teams. You want the smartest and most talented teams to win, not the ones with the most money. I know - a pipe dream, but ...
The F1600 series (and probably others) has it right - limited number of tires per weekend AND a harder (but still great) Hoosier spec tire.
I think some people are always going to be averse to spec tires. I like the way F1600/F2000 (and F1000 CS will be the same, I guess) does it with the 6 tire limit and a tire that is a nice compromise of grip and lifespan.
Even hard tires are better when new than with several heat cycles on them....and if too hard take to long to warm up....creating a risky first lap.
The hoosier 45 is the best compromise we ever found. My son was as fast on 45's (pole 2000 runoffs in FC) as he was on 35 's......(even cold) and the 45's were good for 4 or 5 heat cycles before a minor drop off in grip.....6 through 8 were only fractionally slower. Of course my son liked the car to feel "free".....others may not.
Unless they have changed very recently, goodyears always seemed to fall off significantly at the third heat cycle. And, they require a much more gentle scrubing. At least that has been my experience in FV, FC, and FA.
Back in the late 60's and early 70's I played in Can-Am and F-5000. Goodyear was the tire to have at that time. I was running Firestones because they were free. They were a fairly hard compound (designed to run 200 mile races without pit stops), but they did loose grip with heat cycles just like all race tires do.
Granted street tire compounds don't loose as much grip with heat cycles....but they don't soften as much when they warm up either.....which would change the way we approach everything.
Just my opinion,
Jerry
I think its hard to blame a tire for an accident unless it blows out. An accident is caused by a driver over driving what he has underneath him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Chris;
I started racing when the Firestone "no dots" were the hot tire and they lasted an entire season (15 races). FF had not been introduced either.
Those days are gone. We have 40 years of car and tire development behind us.
We did try an experiment years ago and had a spec tire for FF. That was when you had 50 car fields at many races and near 100 car fields for the June Sprints. That experiment was a total failure. We dropped spec tires the next year but required everyone to race on the same tires they qualified. That rule lasted one year only.
What do you think has changed that would make for different results?
Why was that experiment a total failure?
If I were in a TV court drama I'd say, "How big were those hard-tire fields -- fifty, a hundred cars, Mr. Lathrop? Well, I wonder why those fields were so large... could it have something to do with running those cheap tires that many competitors could afford?"
Kidding, of course... but really, why was that experiment a total failure?
Chris
PS: When I started, I came straight out of driver's school to grid with 45 other Formula Vees (most on Goodyear Blue streaks made of a skate-board-wheel-like tire compound) to race on a 1.8 mile race course (Blackhawk). It was wicked, wild and great!
The competitors were so dissatisfied with the results that they demanded an end to the spec tire rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher Crowe
I will suggest that we can all agree what ideal would be but in reality we can never achieve that result because the imperfections of the real world interfere. Even with spec tires, all tires are not the same. Spec tires will create winners and losers because some tires will fit certain cars and drivers better than others. With the current situation, you are free to choose what you want and you are responsible for the outcome.
Steve, your descriptions are too vague. "Failure" and "Dissatisfied" don't help us understand why it didn't work. Was it that they just didn't like having less grip, and didn't like having slower lap times?
I would think it'd be like any other restriction in racing. You do the best you can with it, knowing it's the same for everyone you're racing against.
I'll probably never be in a position to buy several sets of new tires during a season, so I like the idea of making the playing field more equal and affordable.
Here's an interesting possibility... What if -- and I've never even broached the subject with him -- but what if Jon Lewis could be persuaded to make his series less expensive by way of a spec (cheap!) tire?
More money to travel with. Then more money for Jon to promote the series in that suddenly the series becomes attractive to folks like Russ.
In a scenario like that, one series, one boss thereof... with every competitor agreeing to a single hard compound, long lasting tire, it'd be off to the races! Not a whole lot of people to convince...
Hell, the cars would even look better in slither and slide mode because maybe just maybe these low-powered cars would go faster with a little man-handling of a harder compounbd tire. I would think guys like Brandon (with his nifty car-control) would love it.
Cheaper, a better show. Non?
Chris
Hmmm.. I agree!Quote:
Originally Posted by TTMRacing
But you don't :PQuote:
Originally Posted by TTMRacing
Simply put Russ, the promise of spec tires did not live up to the hype. The end results were that none of the expected benefits were realized.Quote:
Originally Posted by RussMcB
I was building cars and driving then. So I got it from both sides. I also was active in SCCA as well. Guess I was getting hammered three ways.
Good luck with your spec tire idea.. We can't get cheap arse FV drivers to agree on a cheap, durable spec tire. I don't think you stand a chance :)
What incentive is there for the tire manufacturers to build a cheap hard tire that does not degrade quickly? It doesn't sound like a good business model when you compare it to the inverse.
Real world realities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Northwind
Chris, l think you are mistaken when you say that hard tires will make things even and here's why. The coefficient of friction of a tire is directly related to the operating temp of the tire. The cf can change by as much as 30% from cold to hot (of course there is too hot too). What will happen is that the top guys will figure out way different setups that get the hard tires hot quickly and they will still use them up and will still be a second quicker period. If you think hard tires will make you more competitive it will not. The $$ win out most of the time. I do not like it either but I prefer tires that work.
Thanks ... Jay novak
But you need to know from the beginning. Once the cars are built it is pretty unreasonable to change the problem everyone is trying to solve.Quote:
Originally Posted by RussMcB
Jon is running a spec tire for his class. He had even originally spec'ed the GY255 compound tire, which is impossibly hard. Thankfully, he listened to the competitors and went to the 160 compound.Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher Crowe
Even something like the 255, which is not as hard as what you are proposing, is going to be way slower. Brandon was really off the pace at the ARRC with those tires.Quote:
Hell, the cars would even look better in slither and slide mode because maybe just maybe these low-powered cars would go faster with a little man-handling of a harder compounbd tire.
You would think wrong. I have never heard bitching from him like the bitching I was subjected to when he was having to run on those tires. They were so hard that it was impossible to build heat in the tires. Every corner was an adventure since he never knew how much grip the tires would generate.Quote:
I would think guys like Brandon (with his nifty car-control) would love it.
If the F1KCS had gone ahead with the 255 compound tire, it would have meant back to the lab for a lot of work to try to find a solution to tires that suck that much. Lots of effort and maybe lots of money would have been spent to find a solution to those tires. Going to a tire that hard would mean a complete change in what FB is about. It would be a very different class philosophy.
No. Cars do not have to be abusive to tires now. Brandon unloaded at the runoffs for testing and bolted on left over tires from another race. In his first test session he turned a time fast enough for the pole in the race. He is very, very easy on tires and they last longer for him than they do for other car/driver combinations.Quote:
Cheaper, a better show. Non?
Chris
Jay posted this while I was writing my post. He is exactly right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jnovak
It would not be out of the question to see guys making complete changes of shocks and suspension to go back and forth from a hard tire spec series to club racing on tires that don't suck.
I disagree on the $$ though. I think Brandon is getting it done on a budget that is smaller than people think.
And thanks to all for the opinions -- and I respect all of them.
I've been away for about thirty-five years or so... so I'm catching up. I miss the days of those hard tires and the racing they produced... and on a budget. But times have changed, horses have left barns... and folks like the way it's evolved -- so -- so be it!
Again thanks to all.
Chris
I'm no tire engineer, but I doubt highly that the tire companies could even make a tire that satisfied everybody in the grip department , got super long wear, and didn't have a first cycle advantage of some sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Northwind
Add to that the probability that even the tires from 30 years ago would probably show a performance advantage during the first part of the first heat cycle on a modern car - you have to remember that suspension and shock development in those days were pretty stone-age compared to even middle-of-the-road stuff today, where the cars can be re-tuned to really take advantage of whatever the tires will give in performance.
No, it doesn't. Which is why you will never see them even try!Quote:
Originally Posted by Northwind
You spelled out my point exactly.
I was in a series that had spec tires that were very hard radials.
What everyone did was run insane amounts of negative camber to get at least some part of the tire to heat up. The outer edges essentially never touched the ground.
That setup didn't make the tires live any longer - they just worked better.