Tire Brand Question

[sracing]

Please don't try to make this into a p-match between FV and FST.

I guess it depends upon what you call a p-match. Certainly this thread has changed course. But forget FST. If you look at the FV and try to address the things from the list that Steve created, how can you NOT discuss the changes that made the FST? Everyone of those items were the intent of FST. Prior to the FV committee, the FST committee tried to come up with a logical path for FV. It came to what we now call FST. We tried to see how it could be done in incremental steps but it doesn't work out well (as I think your comittee has found) without throwing away parts and $ during the migration plan.

I guess, I will let the thread die (since it's WAY off track) But, I love both classes and hope they both go as long as possible.

[jhenn4716]

Jumping in from a Canadian standpoint and only having run a spec radial tire.

From a cost perspective, there is a huge difference. We are looking at getting 2 seasons from the spec Falken 615's. This is over 18 Races and 30 or so test sessions per year. At roughly $100 per tire, it is hard to argue. There tires are aslo getting faster as they are getting older, and no need for rain's.

From a racing stand point. No one has the "Pocket Book" advantage in this area. Now it comes down to the driver to push the tires and the car to the limit.

Cost is probably the number 1 factor that prevents people from taking up racing or leave racing. Very few are making and actual living doing it. I personally would have an issue if I could not be competitive with a field of racers, beacuse I could not afford to buy new tires or the "better" tire. ( Not having the same size ball's is a different issue)

Radial or Racing slick, personally I feel that a spec tire can only help a class, Especially in FV. The more racers out there the easier it is for everyone, and the stronger the series becomes, Ultimatly lowering costs for everyone.

***Back to putting the snow tires on the vee....

Why couldn't we run the same spec tire here in the US? Assuming everyone could agree on running a spec tire.

[Bill Bonow]

OK, here is an idea that will cost the US guys nothing more than the next purchase of tires.

In advance of statement, I will bet that this will be accepted like (multiple choice):

a) a fart in church
b) a screen door submarine
c) a turd in a punchbowl

Adapt the Hoosier Vintage TD as the tire of choice. They will:

a) last multiple seasons
b) fit without purchase of any wheels
c) equalize the daylights out of "new tires" (bolt on as many as you please, the new to old performance delta will be negligible)
d) cost per race will be in the same range as the Canadian F1200 program.
e) rain or shine, same tires (more savings)

This general concept seems to work quite well for the rest of the FV world.

[jhenn4716]

But getting back to the original thread question, Bob.. if you do end up trying the AR's let me know your experiences. I'm in a similar position of not really needing brand new tires every race weekend and want to stretch my dollar as far as possible.

[lawyerbob]

But getting back to the original thread question, Bob.. if you do end up trying the AR's let me know your experiences. I'm in a similar position of not really needing brand new tires every race weekend and want to stretch my dollar as far as possible.

Will do

Bill - I vote fart in church

[Daryl DeArman]

How many out there would be OK with having to SPEND ... say $800 to buy at least one set of rims (and possibly ONE spare) ... and THEN go spend another $700 (?? quoted above) for a set of tires to go on those rims?.

All due respect Steve; anybody who can do the math and is currently paying for their own tires should be okay with it....unless this is their last year racing FV or they only plan on racing 3 events a year or less.

[CenDiv4]

I know I sure would NOT be comfortable going through the Kink at Road America (or any other turn for that matter) flat out with radial street tires while a F500 decides he wants to go 2-wide and share the line...

Steve makes a great point that the cost savings can be directly reflective to bigger expenses/repair/damage elsewhere.

We are already the slowest cars out there. Slowing us down more (to save money) while some of the other classes develop is just increasing the closing rates, judgment, etc. This issue (and many others) have been discussed since I started FV and I have no clue what needs to be done to address them all... but maybe we should at least rank what our biggest worries or concerns for the class are by priority. Then we can incrementally address them by immediate issues and somewhat of a timeline.

At the end of the day if we all were in Karting most of us would have to spend 2 to 3 times what you are spending now and still get spanked by a teenager!

I believe we need figure out more of a defined direction so we don't have a lot of 1025lb paperweights within the next decade....

[Bill Bonow]

Yep, slowing down is a bad idea based on race grouping. Anyone check out the Sebring National results? 30 seconds per lap delta fastest car to fastest FV (larger delta to slowest FV).

Jim, I think you'd be had pressed to find 400 operational FV's in the US.

[AVR_Shane]

I know I sure would NOT be comfortable going through the Kink at Road America (or any other turn for that matter) flat out with radial street tires while a F500 decides he wants to go 2-wide and share the line...

Steve makes a great point that the cost savings can be directly reflective to bigger expenses/repair/damage elsewhere.

We are already the slowest cars out there. Slowing us down more (to save money) while some of the other classes develop is just increasing the closing rates, judgment, etc. This issue (and many others) have been discussed since I started FV and I have no clue what needs to be done to address them all... but maybe we should at least rank what our biggest worries or concerns for the class are by priority. Then we can incrementally address them by immediate issues and somewhat of a timeline.

At the end of the day if we all were in Karting most of us would have to spend 2 to 3 times what you are spending now and still get spanked by a teenager!

I believe we need figure out more of a defined direction so we don't have about 400+ 1025lb paperweights within the next decade....

Its a different tire, of course you wont be taking the corner at the same speed, but with all due respect the reason as to why you would be spending more on repairs is from negligence. It would take a slightly different learning curve, but we arent talking 10 seconds off here, more like 3 or 4...at Mosport its possible to take turn two flat out on a radial...ask anyone who has been there, that is a daunting task in any car on any tire. I think that the word radial is scaring people more than it should be.

[Daryl DeArman]

I think that the word radial is scaring people more than it should be.

I'm struggling with the logic that a 25 second/lap delta is tolerable but a 28-30 second delta is suddenly insane. Niether one is desireable, but not much real world difference in traffic situations between the two.

As far as being the slowest class, who gives a rip? What's the difference between turd slow and crap slow? If the racing is good and you are getting good value for your buck, who cares?

We get the most out of whatever we are given, that's our job. If you can only go 105 through a corner rather than 110, so what...there are already a ton of corners you can't go 110 through, you go as fast as you and your car can and hope it's faster than those you are competing against.

[Bill Bonow]

Daryl,

Not sure if the insaine was pointed in my direction, but the National race that just took place in Sebring had this for a race group:

FM, FE, FF, F5 and FV

Fast race lap was a 2:09 (FM) and the fastest FV lap was 2:39. That was a current FV with sticky tires. The slowest FV had a fast lap of 2:48 (39 seconds per lap). I don't think I would get much of a thrill or entertainment value from racing with that type of speed differential.

As for the crash increase in cost comment: increase potential for crash due to slower tires, absolute BS. Increase potential for crash due to increase speed delta vs other classes in race group, you bet.

A guess on my part, but I don't think the Canadian FV guys would enjoy racing with FM, FE, FF and F5 cars that are 30+ seconds per lap faster.

[Steve Bamford]

I'm struggling with the logic that a 25 second/lap delta is tolerable but a 28-30 second delta is suddenly insane. Niether one is desireable, but not much real world difference in traffic situations between the two.

As far as being the slowest class, who gives a rip? What's the difference between turd slow and crap slow? If the racing is good and you are getting good value for your buck, who cares?

We get the most out of whatever we are given, that's our job. If you can only go 105 through a corner rather than 110, so what...there are already a ton of corners you can't go 110 through, you go as fast as you and your car can and hope it's faster than those you are competing against.

The difference is very, very little. I am sure each track it would be different but it doesn't take much time to get used to. Over the last 12 months or so I ran GY's, 2 types of Hoosiers, American Racers, Dunlops & Falcons. This was on FV & FF's but it didn't take long to adjust to different tires.

I have to ask, are some of the people who want to stay status quo getting sponsorship $ or reduced rates from their tire manufactures?

It is much easier for us as a region to make this call & I can clearly see why it is much more difficult south of the border.

[Steve Bamford]

Daryl,

Not sure if the insaine was pointed in my direction, but the National race that just took place in Sebring had this for a race group:

FM, FE, FF, F5 and FV

Fast race lap was a 2:09 (FM) and the fastest FV lap was 2:39. That was a current FV with sticky tires. The slowest FV had a fast lap of 2:48 (39 seconds per lap). I don't think I would get much of a thrill or entertainment value from racing with that type of speed differential.

As for the crash increase in cost comment: increase potential for crash due to slower tires, absolute BS. Increase potential for crash due to increase speed delta vs other classes in race group, you bet.

A guess on my part, but I don't think the Canadian FV guys would enjoy racing with FM, FE, FF and F5 cars that are 30+ seconds per lap faster.

No we don't like running with any other class, there is no denying that. We do practice with everything out there though as test days have open wheel & closed wheel sessions only. Last year we did race with Formula Libre due to time delays for a race at Mosport. I believe we had to qualify with Pro Formula Mazada's that were there & f2000's & F1000's. During the race the lead FV group actually passed a F2000, that was funny to say the least.

[CenDiv4]

My statement of slowing our cars down with more "economical" tires was directed towards the other classes that we race with... "share" the track with.... not other FV's.

I am not worried about speed differential amongst ourselves. Try catching a draft off an Atlantic next time he goes by in open wheel practice... by the time you think of getting in behind him he has already grabbed another gear while scroll through pages of data...

The point I am making is we are already busy enough sharing the track with 500's, FF's, etc. I dont want to give up more on track than we already are.

[problemchild]

The kink would be flat on spec Falkens.

I think FV needs any good spec tire.

If I was starting from scratch, I would go the spec radial route.

However, I think the most do-able is a tire made by Hoosier/Goodyear/AR/somebody else that fits on existing wheels and is made to specs offering the best compromise of performance, cost, and durability. My personal experience with Goodyear and Hoosier have shown me that they have the technology to reproduce the performance of the current tire when 5-6 sessions old, and that would wear for 20-25 sessions, with minimal performance fall-off for 15+ sessions. Both the Hoosier FF spec products are outstanding and Goodyear is certainly capable.

The increased crash damage theory is just fear of the unknown and totally unfounded. Whether on spec slicks or spec radials (they are actually race tires with nudge-nudge wink-wink DOT rating) those will have similiar performance to the bottom 70% that are not running new tires now.

I have been racing formula cars on spec radial tires since 1981. I can tell you exactly what will happen. The fast guys will still be fast. The slowest guys will still be the slowest. The mid-pack guys will rearrange slightly as the talent-to-money balance shifts slightly. The fields will be slightly closer and everyone will spend less money.

In time, the closer fields and reduced cost, fuels growth.

There is no down side!

[Steve Bamford]

The kink would be flat on spec Falkens.

I think FV needs any good spec tire.

If I was starting from scratch, I would go the spec radial route.

However, I think the most do-able is a tire made by Hoosier/Goodyear/AR/somebody else that fits on existing wheels and is made to specs offering the best compromise of performance, cost, and durability. My personal experience with Goodyear and Hoosier have shown me that they have the technology to reproduce the performance of the current tire when 5-6 sessions old, and that would wear for 20-25 sessions, with minimal performance fall-off for 15+ sessions. Both the Hoosier FF spec products are outstanding and Goodyear is certainly capable.

The increased crash damage theory is just fear of the unknown and totally unfounded. Whether on spec slicks or spec radials (they are actually race tires with nudge-nudge wink-wink DOT rating) those will have similiar performance to the bottom 70% that are not running new tires now.

I have been racing formula cars on spec radial tires since 1981. I can tell you exactly what will happen. The fast guys will still be fast. The slowest guys will still be the slowest. The mid-pack guys will rearrange slightly as the talent-to-money balance shifts slightly. The fields will be slightly closer and everyone will spend less money. In time, the closer fields and less money spent, fuels growth.

If FV was to go this route then you need to get some sort of arrangement with the tire companies to not charge stupid prices still on the spec you decided upon. No sense doing this then the tire manufacture decides to charge a grand a set.

[problemchild]

If FV was to go this route then you need to get some sort of arrangement with the tire companies to not charge stupid prices still on the spec you decided upon. No sense doing this then the tire manufacture decides to charge a grand a set.

Cost has to be part of the selection process. Personally, I would insist the contract had no driver sponsorships, no continguencies, and the lowest price shared by all competitors equally.

[problemchild]

This process could easily happen for 2013.

You need to give a reasonable lead time so the existing tire suppliers could manage their inventory and production.

[Steve Davis]

...I have to ask, are some of the people who want to stay status quo getting sponsorship $ or reduced rates from their tire manufactures?...

This question is rarely asked but often ASSUMED, so I'll give you my best answer.
The ONLY Vee guy that likely gets a "free ride" for tires is the reigning National Champ - and that varies significantly from "all you want" to "a free one for each set you buy". After that, a very few get 'help' from the factory or from their local tire dealer. That might amount to a tire or 2 per race weekend. Quite a number of racers *WIN* tires via the contingency program. GY contingency last year was 2 tires for a National win ... *IF* there were more than 3 cars in the CLASS (not group). (not sure about Hoosier) Does that reduce costs for those few? Sure - does it keep them from wanting what's BEST FOR THE CLASS? I don't think so. Everyone keeps referring to the "masses that get free tires and therefore FIGHT against Spec Tire". That is not at ALL the case from where I sit. They are not up on their bandwagon as a driving force for ST, but most would not fight it at all. (See Mike's post above) Overall, there are not enough guys out there with lucrative 'tire deals' to sway a reasonable response to a RFMI from the CRB... as long as a significant number of people DO respond. If there are only 6 responses, all bets are off. IIRC the largest response ever received for any issue in any class was the FV manifold issue - and even that was PITIFUL against the total number of competitors out there. No more than the apathetic voting polls for our elected representatives.

What it really comes down to are a few basic questions
1). Do those that favor ST do so because they think it will make them more competitive or because it will (might) save them $$$?
2). Are a significant portion of the DRIVERS out there (in SCCA) in favor of ST? (previous polls have indicated NO, but times might have changed)
3). If there is a significant up front cost (change of rims) would the answer be the same.
4). How many cars will we LOOSE if a rule is enacted that is not well received (say a 65/35 vote?)
5). Is a hard tire on our current rims that "lasts" 10 sessions instead of 6 (lasts ~twice as long - 1.5 to 2 secs slower) before falling off really going to save enough money to make a difference?

It would seem that most everyone who really CARES about this stuff is on at least one of the forums. However, those that don't care might be in the "I'll stay regardless" basket or ..... the other basket ...and we really have no idea how many of those are in which basket.

Like it or not, it's pretty scary to be thinking major changes ... like buying new rims - even if it would be best in the long run. I REALLY don't want to be in a class like GT3 ... or any of 10 other classes I could mention.

Have many of you followed the F5/F6 controversy? It has ended up JUST like the FV/FST saga. Personally, I am in favor of 'moving forward' with the class - allowing new things to ease parts availability and maybe improve our 'appeal'. If you look back over my "list of 5", ST was *NOT* in the list. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea worth pursuing, but will it really have an effect on the number of active competitors? I don't think the Canadian series is successful just because of the ST. I could be wrong....

back to sleep...
Steve, FV80

[jhenn4716]

My statement of slowing our cars down with more "economical" tires was directed towards the other classes that we race with... "share" the track with.... not other FV's.

I am not worried about speed differential amongst ourselves. Try catching a draft off an Atlantic next time he goes by in open wheel practice... by the time you think of getting in behind him he has already grabbed another gear while scroll through pages of data...

The point I am making is we are already busy enough sharing the track with 500's, FF's, etc. I dont want to give up more on track than we already are.

We have cars with 60's technology versus modern snowmobile engines and Fit motors, tires are the least of our worries. If we had bigger fields maybe we wouldn't have to share the track with other classes. But how to get those bigger fields is the $64,000 question.

[butch deer]

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49960

See the vvv schedule. 25 plus vintage vees per event. Run group is usually just Vintage Vees. I understand at least three new competitors this coming season may turn into 30plus vee fields. Treaded tires that last more than 6 heat cycles. The place to be if you wqant old dtyle vee racing in a great run group.

[Amon]

JHenn: That's why we're attempting to discuss a variable: Tires!


Butch: I'm considering the addition of a vintage vee to the stable
for just those reasons!


Mark

[nbrigido]

We have cars with 60's technology versus modern snowmobile engines and Fit motors, tires are the least of our worries. If we had bigger fields maybe we wouldn't have to share the track with other classes. But how to get those bigger fields is the $64,000 question.

Reading through all the post, everyone brings up valid points. But at the end of the day, bigger fields = single class track time.

How do you get the bigger fields? In Canada we have taken a cost approach. Keep it affordable for everyone. Even a guy who is being lapped, and just there for fun comes out every weekend and supports the series (we have to respect that). One of the reason The Master class was created (for Drivers 45 and over).

Larger fields and everyone on the same mechanical playing field, makes for exciting racing (For Everyone). As mentioned previously by BamBam, most of the races are decided in the last couple of turns, on a track like Mosport (Amazing to see 4 cars side by side coming for the checker flag, 2 of then 1/2 on the grass).

If we could play with tires, manifolds... Some would, some would not and some would just not bother showing up at all, meaning smaller fields and sharing track time with the Libre's (which is not fun).

Be it radials, or slicks spec's help. Vee's are old technology, which is part of the reason they are fun and affordable. No special tools, no scales, engine management...

Aren't we all here to have fun, be competitive?

[AVR_Shane]

I don't think the Canadian series is successful just because of the ST. I could be wrong....
Steve, FV80

I can say very confidently that if we were not running a spec tire, fields would be under average of 10 (currently between 15-20)...then we would lose our own grid and race with the rest of Formula Libres, field would die down to 5, and very soon be extinct.

I strongly believe that the success of Formula 1200 is 90% based on the fact that we spend give or take $3000-$3500 LESS on tires in one season than racing SCCA

[nbrigido]

Attachment 28950

I think our wheels looks pretty cool too...

(#26 Courtesy of Shane at AVR)

[nbrigido]

Must be a touchy subject?? There are currenly more people viewing this than anywhere on Apexspeed!!

Time to hold the vote...

[butch deer]

I don't know the demographics of FV in the SCCA but my guess that a master class of 45+ would have contained about 95 Per cent of the field at last years "Runoffs" A friend of mine won STU and at 46 he was the youngest driver in his class. Master class should start at 65 and increase if congress raises the age for full social security benifits.
Butch

[AVR_Shane]

I don't know the demographics of FV in the SCCA but my guess that a master class of 45+ would have contained about 95 Per cent of the field at last years "Runoffs" A friend of mine won STU and at 46 he was the youngest driver in his class. Master class should start at 65 and increase if congress raises the age for full social security benifits.
Butch

This is definitely not part of this topic of discussion, but the age of 45 was picked based on the demographic of racers in our series. I believe that we had 5 or 6 potential masters drivers out of 20ish. 65 would include 1, maybe 2 drivers in our field.

This class was thought of to increase the competitiveness of older drivers and bring in more drivers who might not race otherwise with our current field. The majority of our lead pack of 10 or so cars often consists of drivers ranging from 17-30. Understandably, this class doesn't exist in SCCA because of the reason you just stated!

[nbrigido]

I don't know the demographics of FV in the SCCA but my guess that a master class of 45+ would have contained about 95 Per cent of the field at last years "Runoffs" A friend of mine won STU and at 46 he was the youngest driver in his class. Master class should start at 65 and increase if congress raises the age for full social security benifits.
Butch

Going out on a limb, but would you say disposible income has a large part to do with it?

[Tiago Santos]

Going out on a limb, but would you say disposible income has a large part to do with it?

Yes, I would say that (I know the question wasn't for me!).

As "cheap" as FV is, not a lot of 17-30 year old folks out there with $1000 to spend on a weekend of racing. And the ones that do have a lot of money to burn won't be racing a vee.

[Amon]

Tiago:

Don't forget the initial cost for the Vee, $1000 drivers school if you must travel,
SCCA driver's license fee & other costs etc....

Mark

[Matt King]

I have been racing formula cars on spec radial tires since 1981. I can tell you exactly what will happen. The fast guys will still be fast. The slowest guys will still be the slowest. The mid-pack guys will rearrange slightly as the talent-to-money balance shifts slightly. The fields will be slightly closer and everyone will spend less money.

In time, the closer fields and reduced cost, fuels growth.

There is no down side!

Pretty much anyone who has raced in a class with a spec tire knows this to be true, yet the fear mongers, most of whom have never raced on a spec tire, will win the public and private debate until a "benevolent dictator" steps in. Seems like an issue the FVAC should take on. They guided the class through Manifold-gate, so this one should not be any harder! I would vote for a tire that works on the current wheels. That would not be a hardship to any competitor, except the guys who try to run three seasons on one set of used tires.

[Daryl DeArman]

Daryl,

Not sure if the insaine was pointed in my direction, but the National race that just took place in Sebring had this for a race group:

FM, FE, FF, F5 and FV

Fast race lap was a 2:09 (FM) and the fastest FV lap was 2:39. That was a current FV with sticky tires. The slowest FV had a fast lap of 2:48 (39 seconds per lap). I don't think I would get much of a thrill or entertainment value from racing with that type of speed differential.

As for the crash increase in cost comment: increase potential for crash due to slower tires, absolute BS. Increase potential for crash due to increase speed delta vs other classes in race group, you bet.

A guess on my part, but I don't think the Canadian FV guys would enjoy racing with FM, FE, FF and F5 cars that are 30+ seconds per lap faster.

Nope Bill it wasn't pointed your direction, it was just an observation that if the already huge performance deltas don't have you worried slowing down a few more seconds a lap shouldn't be a deal breaker.

[Daryl DeArman]

What it really comes down to are a few basic questions.

1). Do those that favor ST do so because they think it will make them more competitive or because it will (might) save them $$$?

2). Are a significant portion of the DRIVERS out there (in SCCA) in favor of ST? (previous polls have indicated NO, but times might have changed)

3). If there is a significant up front cost (change of rims) would the answer be the same.

4). How many cars will we LOOSE if a rule is enacted that is not well received (say a 65/35 vote?)

5). Is a hard tire on our current rims that "lasts" 10 sessions instead of 6 (lasts ~twice as long - 1.5 to 2 secs slower) before falling off really going to save enough money to make a difference?

(1) If the correct ST is chosen, I won't have to spend as much to go as fast. It won't save me money because I will spend the tire savings on other things that aren't so consumable.

(2) doesn't apply to me.

(3) when a set of rims cost about the same as a set of tires, it's a non issue as soon as you would have been on Non-ST set #2.

(4) I'd guess not many....no matter how loud they scream or how much they puff their chest.

(5) In my opinion, no. A tire that falls off 1.5 seconds over X # of heat cycles (whether it's 2 or 20) is going to get replaced before it gets to that point, so it needs to be cheap because the replacement interval isn't vastly different when the performance drop is that much.

[hojof1]

When Canadian F1200 needed to look at a new spec tire in 2009 becuaes the old spec was no longer in production it was critical to the group that it stayed on the same rims.

we ended up with a slightly larger tire and there was some moaning and groaning (i was one) but the alternatives were just more costly or added up to a major shift in philopshy of the "rubber/wheel" package no one wanted to get into$$$$$$. its a slippery slope.

its already been said, but worth saying again...you got to stay on the same wheels, find some or create some rubber that fits on those wheels that gives significantly higher return in the wallet than what would be lost in decreased performance.

bear in mind that the perfomance shouldnt change amongst the class, the racing will still be the same. come up with a formula... if i save $500 this year its worth a loss of 1 sec per lap on avg or something like that....

FYI
the original falken was an awful race tire, however they tweaked the compound with the K spec version and got rid of the original (we had nothing to do with the change). it made a world of difference comfort and consistency wise but is less than 1 sec per lap quicker, so everyone is happy up here as you can tell.

to a point rubber is just rubber, i'd race on tires made of pencil eraser if it made enough sense

good luck in your quest, mass change isn't easy

[Steve Davis]

..
(2) doesn't apply to me.

...
(5) In my opinion, no. A tire that falls off 1.5 seconds over X # of heat cycles (whether it's 2 or 20) is going to get replaced before it gets to that point, so it needs to be cheap because the replacement interval isn't vastly different when the performance drop is that much.

#2 - does your answer mean that you are not a driver or not in SCCA?

#5 - sorry - I meant that the tire overall would BE 1.5-2 secs slower - not that it would drop off that badly. We would hope for 0.5 sec drop off after the first session (the FIRST session would likely ALWAYS be the best for any slick ST - proven many many times in spec classes)

Seems that MOST of the participants in this thread are Canadian, eh?
Does that mean that USA, SCCA types aren't interested, or just that they don't frequent the forums??

Steve, FV80

[Amon]

Steve,

We're all here, just lurking in the background!

Mark

[lawyerbob]

Seems that MOST of the participants in this thread are Canadian, eh?
Does that mean that USA, SCCA types aren't interested, or just that they don't frequent the forums??

Steve, FV80

I'm US/SCCA (although I'm in Wisconsin which is a suburb of Canada).

Personally, as a budget conscious racer (and having had a good experience in FST) I'd be in favor of a spec tire, but as I've said before, I'd also be in favor of evolution of FV overall.

[Daryl DeArman]

#2 - does your answer mean that you are not a driver or not in SCCA?

Not a SCCA member. However, also no longer racing a FV.

[hojof1]

Hi steve, regarding the canadian content, my personal opinion is the two situations are vastly different only in the demographic and political realms when it comes to looking at rules or spec vs non spec discussion. which is no llitle thing. i think we're just overly happy we have something that works really well for us and aren't afraid to share that happiness while not whole heartedly understanding why things are the way they are in the US. i duno.

from the outside looking in and again personal opinion here, demographics aside, for a class that is virtually spec with everything else in the rules other than the frame rails that hold it all together, how the tire stays open is to me, well, strange. everything else is heavily regulated.

but wait aren't the tires pretty much spec anyway GY or Hoosier (run the softest compound you can get), they just cost a lot and wear down quick? if the compound allowed at say the regional level was restricted to a more durable compound (if its available) would this accomplish anyting, move things in the right direction?

over the years as the tires from GY or HOO have evolved has the class gotten a little too "addicted" to the grip and now everyone is so used to that feeling they dont want to go back? its like crack! lol yup i went there, tire manufacturers in this case are drug pushers.

it reminds me of my karting days "if i put that fresh set of boots on i might win this time" haha never happened, why becuase everyone else did the same thing poooof goes the money and said tire dealer goes home with happy fat wallet....2 people won that day. the same race with same likely outcome happened regardless.