FF Spec tire rule - what to criteria consider

[John LaRue]

I would like to solicit a list of criteria that should be considered in the possible adoption of a spec or DOT tire rule for FF. I am not looking for arguments for/against, simply a list of things that you believe the FSRAC/CRB/BOD should take into consideration when looking at this issue.

Thanks,

John

[problemchild]

The tires should not wear out in less than 15-20 sessions when raced at optimum pace.

The loss in performance (degradation) should be minimal during that time, certainly the first half of their life.

Tire sponsorships and contingencies should be eliminated and the tire cost reduced to the lowest level for everyone equally.

One size for the front and one size for rear. No variations.

Whether the tire is bias, radial, or "DOT" is unimportant.

[Brian C in Az]

If the decision is made to use the Toyo's or other treaded tire, a simple rule regarding shaving will be a great equalizer. The companies distributing the tires do offer shaving down to 4/32" for a small fee. Simply requiring the tires have at least 3 or 4/32" of tread at the beginning of the weekend would be an easy way to keep everyone equal. That being the essence of Formula Ford, equality of equipment at a reasonable cost; let the best driver win...

[problemchild]

I will add that the worst spec tires that I have seen is when the organizer put commercial interests ahead of the criteria that was best for the racers, so the commercial relationship between SCCA and the tire supplier should be secondary ..... very secondary.

[Brian C in Az]

Tire sponsorships and contingencies should be eliminated and the tire cost reduced to the lowest level for everyone equally.

Sponsorships and contingencies should be allowed, but should not be included in the decision making process.

Tire cost should absolutely be considered as well as options for obtaining the tires. Multiple sources ( distributors competing for tire sales ) guarantee lower prices whereas a single source supplier always leads to higher costs for the majority while a few chosen ones get special deals.

I.E.
If Toyo ( or any other manufacturer ) wants to pay us a few dollars for winning a race on their tires with their logo on our car, that is a fair contingency program and helps to keep costs down. Conversely, when the big H gives certain teams free sets of slicks or sells them to selected teams below dealer cost, that is stacking the deck against the majority.

The current situation has resulted in fewer cars at most venues.

The lower cost tires have resulted in much larger fields. The discussion of a new series on treaded tires in the S.E. has already generated almost 20 entries in just a couple of weeks.

The math is simple, slicks that cost $2000 per weekend result in fewer cars, whereas tires that cost $70 to $100 (averaged cost factor) per weekend result in larger fields.

[problemchild]

Sponsorships and contingencies should be allowed, but should not be included in the decision making process.

Tire cost should absolutely be considered as well as options for obtaining the tires. Multiple sources ( distributors competing for tire sales ) guarantee lower prices whereas a single source supplier always leads to higher costs for the majority while a few chosen ones get special deals.

I.E.
If Toyo ( or any other manufacturer ) wants to pay us a few dollars for winning a race on their tires with their logo on our car, that is a fair contingency program and helps to keep costs down. Conversely, when the big H gives certain teams free sets of slicks or sells them to selected teams below dealer cost, that is stacking the deck against the majority.

The current situation has resulted in fewer cars at most venues.

The lower cost tires have resulted in much larger fields. The discussion of a new series on treaded tires in the S.E. has already generated almost 20 entries in just a couple of weeks.

The math is simple, slicks that cost $2000 per weekend result in fewer cars, whereas tires that cost $70 to $100 (averaged cost factor) per weekend result in larger fields.

I won't obsess about contingencies, but you have to understand that the racers are paying for those contingencies.
For example:
If you had a 4 weekend long Series with 20 cars and $1000 in contingency paid per weekend. If each racer used 1 set of $800 tires for that Series, eliminating the contingency, would save each racer $200 or $50 per tire. That is just math.

[Max Power]

One criteria should be "Convenience", for lack of a better term.

This should assess things like:
1. How many sets a guy needs to own to get on track and be competitive (tire vs tire).
If slicks are chosen, for instance, you still have to factor in cost and lifespan of rains.
Also, having to haul around multiple sets of wheels/tires to the track is a big plus for those of us that don't have 3 crew guys available every random day we want to race and a mega transporter.
2. Overall lifespan of tire, including while it is in storage. Over winter, for example, so I don't have to buy more in April when I just bought a set in September. Or if I need to take a season off, no problem, there's a chance I don't have to pony up for another set the next time around.
3. Cost/time/aggro of mounting/storing/hauling around. It adds up.

This type of criteria should help eliminate a lot of issues for the guy who wants to race a few times year (I'm guess there are A LOT of us out there), not to mention the rest who just want to save money.

[Brian C in Az]

I won't obsess about contingencies, but you have to understand that the racers are paying for those contingencies.
For example:
If you had a 4 weekend long Series with 20 cars and $1000 in contingency paid per weekend. If each racer used 1 set of $800 tires for that Series, eliminating the contingency, would save each racer $200 or $50 per tire. That is just math.

Yes and No….

That may be true when dealing with a company structure like Hoosier.

With larger corporations, contingencies are part of their advertising budgets. The advertising budget is a percentage of total sales, not the 20 sets of tires sold that week. So Yes, contingencies are factored in the the price because all manufacturers factor advertising into the pricing. But No, because eliminating contingencies won't necessarily lower costs when buying from a hundred million dollar per year company like Toyo, they will spend those advertising dollars somewhere, if not contingencies, then on another ad in a magazine or on TV.

You are absolutely correct that the sanctioning body should not be considering which manufacturer will pay them the most. As you said, that will result in a less than ideal choice (for the racers).

[Steve Bamford]

Yes and No….

That may be true when dealing with a company structure like Hoosier.

With larger corporations, contingencies are part of their advertising budgets. The advertising budget is a percentage of total sales, not the 20 sets of tires sold that week. So Yes, contingencies are factored in the the price because all manufacturers factor advertising into the pricing. But No, because eliminating contingencies won't necessarily lower costs when buying from a hundred million dollar per year company like Toyo, they will spend those advertising dollars somewhere, if not contingencies, then on another ad in a magazine or on TV.

You are absolutely correct that the sanctioning body should not be considering which manufacturer will pay them the most. As you said, that will result in a less than ideal choice (for the racers).

Instead of contingency & there is advertising money as you say, why not have sponsorship money put towards the ALL racers themselves instead of just the winners? If you get 25 grand or 10 grand, whatever the number is, take the racers & pay them out per race they entered at the end of the season. That way you reward those who race more rather then those that win.

All this should be secondary to what others have wrote about what they want with the tires themselves.

[Brian C in Az]

One criteria should be "Convenience", for lack of a better term.

This should assess things like:
1. How many sets a guy needs to own to get on track and be competitive (tire vs tire).
If slicks are chosen, for instance, you still have to factor in cost and lifespan of rains.
Also, having to haul around multiple sets of wheels/tires to the track is a big plus for those of us that don't have 3 crew guys available every random day we want to race and a mega transporter.
2. Overall lifespan of tire, including while it is in storage. Over winter, for example, so I don't have to buy more in April when I just bought a set in September. Or if I need to take a season off, no problem, there's a chance I don't have to pony up for another set the next time around.
3. Cost/time/aggro of mounting/storing/hauling around. It adds up.

This type of criteria should help eliminate a lot of issues for the guy who wants to race a few times year (I'm guess there are A LOT of us out there), not to mention the rest who just want to save money.

The answer to this was posted in another thread:

We did a back to back test with Toyo tires that were run for 17mins, then sat in an unheated/un AC WNY storage unit for 11 1/2 monthes, and a new set of stickers. No difference in time or driver feedback (once we got the glue, mold release, and nibs off). We subsequently mixed and matched with no negative issues, at times running tires together that were purchased over a range of 3 years. This was at lap record pace.

Any differences in grip seem to be short-term after relocating tires to different corners. It seems to take a few laps to rearrange the rubber pickup and wear pattern. While the Toyos may not be the best tire in the world, they are absolutely consistent, durable, and affordable.

The other issue of needing rain tires becomes solved when running treaded tires. A new set of treads does double duty, one being spares at the track, two being rain tires if needed. Also, if the rain stops, you won't ruin your new "rain set".

[Joe Marcinski]

Hi John,

I think that perhaps someone like Dave W (who has tire considerable engineering expertise) might be more appropriate to comment on this, but perhaps we should consider some standardized measures that already exist?

This might limit us to DOT specification tires, but it would at least provide some baseline for us. There is a standard UTQG (Uniform Tire Quality Grade) measurement that is used to provide some relative data that might be helpful. For example; we might see a tire that has a UTQG designation of 100 AA A or 40 C A. I may screw up this interpretation, but I will give it a try. The numerical value is for tread wear; the first letter designation is for wet straight line traction and the last letter is for heat resistance at speed.

If we were to look at tires made by various manufacturers who use verbiage such as "racetrack & autocross only" to describe the tire; we would see UTQG tread wear values ranging from 40 to 100. The higher the number the more wear resistant the tread.

The traction value measurement is the "AA" to "C" value and it is a relative measure for wet straight line braking. A value of "AA" would produce greater stopping G-force levels than a "C" rating. This value or measurement does not reflect any capability as far as wet cornering or resistance to hydroplaning. It simply provide a relative value for wet braking capability.

An "A" temperature rating would indicate a tire that would survive at speeds greater than 115 MPH whereas a C temperature rating might be good to 85 to 100 MPH (and not suitable for our purposes).

So, I would think that we would want a treaded tire so that we could use it in the wet as well as dry. I would also think we would want a tire that has the best combination of wear expectation, wet traction and heat resistance.

Does that help or make sense?

Joe Marcinski

I do not think that would keep us from having a set with deeper treads for the rain and a set with less tread for the dry, but I think it would still be a good place to start.

[DaveW]

An important thing to consider is that if you are aiming for a production street tire where the UTQG ratings apply, you want one that is intended for (extreme) high-performance summer use, so that the tread compound won't turn to mush racing on a hot day. No manufacturer that I know of makes a tire like that in 13" diameter unless it is really a racing tire that can be street driven.

So, that, to me, means you are limited to purpose-built (DOT-approved?) treaded race tires, as have been described in a few current threads, such as: http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...ewpost&t=66371 .

[dc]

Unfortunately, treadwear ratings for road tires are only comparable within each brand, i.e. a 200 treadwear rating on a Toyo is not the same as a 200 treadwear rating on a BFG Rival, but a Rival's treadwear can be accurately compared to a BFG Comp2. They can't be used for an accurate measurement of tire wear because the standard isn't really a standard set by one company.

The other "Three Ts" letter designations like temperature, traction and treadwear are also not great comparisons, either. Most tier 1 tire manufacturers are going to put out the highest grades tires possible (AA or A) and it won't help you in comparing various brands very much.

The only way to accurately test tires is to put them on the track and get real data.

[SEComposites]

http://www.avonmotorsport.com/motors...ula-ford/acb10

Job done!

[Brian C in Az]

http://www.avonmotorsport.com/motors...ula-ford/acb10

Job done!

http://www.sascosports.com/tires_sea...im_diameter=13

They cost $250.00 each and do not last as long as the Toyo. But they are the official tire in Europe.

For the north border state racers, using the Toyo would be a better choice so they don't have to change when visiting Canada and the Canadian wouldn't have to change to visit the US. We get a few Canadain visitors/racers in Az during the winter, so the Toyo would be better for our region.

[SEComposites]

I agree, just throwing out another option. If the Toyo's are cheaper and last longer then what's not to like!?

[John LaRue]

I was looking for criteria by which to evaluate the choices, not a debate as to what the best option would be.

My list would include:

unit cost,
durability (overall mileage),
consistency (fall off between heat cycles),
radial vs. bias,
weight,
driveabiity (is the tire something that the average racer can set his car up for and race on?),
ultimate performance,
at track service,
universal application (wet & dry)

John

[TimH]

Instead of contingency & there is advertising money as you say, why not have sponsorship money put towards the ALL racers themselves instead of just the winners?

The Canadian racers get, I believe, a $100 Toyo gift certificate for the first x to sign up for the season. That seems more than fair.

[TimH]

Some assurance the tire will still be available some years from now.

[John Robinson II]

I was looking for criteria by which to evaluate the choices, not a debate as to what the best option would be.

My list would include:

unit cost,
durability (overall mileage),
consistency (fall off between heat cycles),
radial vs. bias,
weight,
driveabiity (is the tire something that the average racer can set his car up for and race on?),
ultimate performance,
at track service,
universal application (wet & dry)

John

john,
I think you just answered your question. the only problem I see is the at track service. Hoosier has been the only one at the tracks I have visited this year.

JRII

[Joe Marcinski]

I agree with JRII; I believe you have covered all the relevant criteria John.

Joe Marcinski

[marshall9]

Hi John,

I think that perhaps someone like Dave W (who has tire considerable engineering expertise) might be more appropriate to comment on this, but perhaps we should consider some standardized measures that already exist?

This might limit us to DOT specification tires, but it would at least provide some baseline for us. There is a standard UTQG (Uniform Tire Quality Grade) measurement that is used to provide some relative data that might be helpful. For example; we might see a tire that has a UTQG designation of 100 AA A or 40 C A. I may screw up this interpretation, but I will give it a try. The numerical value is for tread wear; the first letter designation is for wet straight line traction and the last letter is for heat resistance at speed.

If we were to look at tires made by various manufacturers who use verbiage such as "racetrack & autocross only" to describe the tire; we would see UTQG tread wear values ranging from 40 to 100. The higher the number the more wear resistant the tread.

The traction value measurement is the "AA" to "C" value and it is a relative measure for wet straight line braking. A value of "AA" would produce greater stopping G-force levels than a "C" rating. This value or measurement does not reflect any capability as far as wet cornering or resistance to hydroplaning. It simply provide a relative value for wet braking capability.

An "A" temperature rating would indicate a tire that would survive at speeds greater than 115 MPH whereas a C temperature rating might be good to 85 to 100 MPH (and not suitable for our purposes).

So, I would think that we would want a treaded tire so that we could use it in the wet as well as dry. I would also think we would want a tire that has the best combination of wear expectation, wet traction and heat resistance.

Does that help or make sense?

Joe Marcinski

I do not think that would keep us from having a set with deeper treads for the rain and a set with less tread for the dry, but I think it would still be a good place to start.

Maybe Dave can chime in again, but I have also thought of the idea, don't know if it's true or not, but due to the minimal weight of a FF as compared to "Street " cars (Spec Miata that also run Toyo R888 sometimes) how does that affect speed ratings? The tire doesn't know how fast it's going, only how much heat it is holding and loads that it is bearing. My experience, out side of formula cars , is limited to SRF and Mazda has been that almost any identical tire gets hotter and wears faster on a heavier car. What weight car is the speed rating tested with? May have some bearing. By that I am wondering if a 115 mph tire is okay on a FF at 130, but not on a Miata at 130 MPH?

[marshall9]

I agree, just throwing out another option. If the Toyo's are cheaper and last longer then what's not to like!?

Probably the asterisk put on all existing track records that they were prior to the new tire rule.

[marshall9]

john,
I think you just answered your question. the only problem I see is the at track service. Hoosier has been the only one at the tracks I have visited this year.

JRII

No disrespect John, but if Toyo was the tire, I would think a dealer would show up, they do for us.

[S Lathrop]

unit cost,
durability (overall mileage),
consistency (fall off between heat cycles),
radial vs. bias,
weight,
driveabiity (is the tire something that the average racer can set his car up for and race on?),
ultimate performance,
at track service,
universal application (wet & dry)

One secondary consideration should be that the new tires are some what close to the current tires in diameters. A change of diameter much greater than a 1/2 inch will require significant changes to the car to optimize handling. Some cars this will be easy and some it won't be possible.

[mblanc]

I would like to solicit a list of criteria that should be considered in the possible adoption of a SPEC ***OR*** DOT tire rule for FF.

EMPHASIS ADDED

I think most missed that John asked for criteria on EITHER a spec OR DOT tire, not just DOT


IMHO

The HOOSIER R60 is already the perfect choice, and CURRENTLY MEETS REASONABLE CRITERIA.

1-it's already produced
2-it has support at the track
3-tried and true product, for a couple decades in CFF
4-Contingency programs from Hoosier in past are good, no doubt in future also.
5-It lasts 20 cycles
6-It's a true slick
7-It's hard enough you don't need goofy tire marking rules
8-It's not such a huge leap from current NO TIRE RULE, to a spec slick, but it sure would save the $$$$
9-Sizes are right,
10-quality American tire company, with no supply issues (unlike vintage tires)


/\ above would be my criteria list

[Daryl DeArman]

1. cost of a new set.

2. sizes available to work on existing wheels.

3. does the choice support existing vendors?

4. longevity

[Brian C in Az]

Maybe Dave can chime in again, but I have also thought of the idea, don't know if it's true or not, but due to the minimal weight of a FF as compared to "Street " cars (Spec Miata that also run Toyo R888 sometimes) how does that affect speed ratings? The tire doesn't know how fast it's going, only how much heat it is holding and loads that it is bearing. My experience, out side of formula cars , is limited to SRF and Mazda has been that almost any identical tire gets hotter and wears faster on a heavier car. What weight car is the speed rating tested with? May have some bearing. By that I am wondering if a 115 mph tire is okay on a FF at 130, but not on a Miata at 130 MPH?

The Toyo is rated 80V which is 149 mph with a load of 900 lbs. per tire

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete....jsp?techid=35

So unless you are cheating, your FF will never exceed the speed/load rating.

[Ian Lenhart]

Another Criteria:

No cantilever rears.

[Brian C in Az]

I was looking for criteria by which to evaluate the choices, not a debate as to what the best option would be.

My list would include:

unit cost,
durability (overall mileage),
consistency (fall off between heat cycles),
radial vs. bias,
weight,
driveabiity (is the tire something that the average racer can set his car up for and race on?),
ultimate performance,
at track service,
universal application (wet & dry)

John

Maybe Dave can chime in again, but I have also thought of the idea, …... What weight car is the speed rating tested with? May have some bearing. By that I am wondering if a 115 mph tire is okay on a FF at 130, but not on a Miata at 130 MPH?

Probably the asterisk put on all existing track records that they were prior to the new tire rule.

EMPHASIS ADDED

I think most missed that John asked for criteria on EITHER a spec OR DOT tire, not just DOT


IMHO

The HOOSIER R60 is already the perfect choice, and CURRENTLY MEETS REASONABLE CRITERIA.

As John stated, John justs wants the list of criteria for the decision makers to consider.
Let's start another thread to discuss/debate which tire is best.

[SEComposites]

Long life
Cheap
Treaded

Please.

[Dennis Valet]

I think the prudent thing to do would be waiting for the pro series to announce their tire and run it for an entire year. What better way to pontificate about what will work than to actually race on a tire for an entire year and see if it works (Yes I know that Toyo tires have already proven to work for the goals established by the Canadian series.)

I have a feeling it will fill much of the criteria already mentioned anyway.

[DanW]

FF Spec tire rule - what to criteria consider ---->>>

Create a User Requirements Specification
A document that lays out what is required, by priority. This is far better than "Go find me a tire to race on. No not that tire, I don't like that one, go find me another one til you find one I like!" Lets face it. Racing is an engineering problem with a very narrow set of defined parameters. So, its time to behave like engineers to get what you want.

Definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_requirements_document

Process
http://www.validation-online.net/use...ification.html

Document Template
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...S7VRURGLrKzkJA

[PCalhoun]

Unfortunately, treadwear ratings for road tires are only comparable within each brand, i.e. a 200 treadwear rating on a Toyo is not the same as a 200 treadwear rating on a BFG Rival, but a Rival's treadwear can be accurately compared to a BFG Comp2. They can't be used for an accurate measurement of tire wear because the standard isn't really a standard...

Doug- this is not true either. UTQG can be understated by a mfg, it just cannot be overstated vs the DOT std established. This is not uncommon in UHP performance tires where a consumer has different tire performance characteristics they are looking for vs an all-season customer. Of course compound is only one contributing factor to tire wear and performance, but to state it is the same within a mfg is not true.


As to the DOT solutions the Toyo R888 (or Hoosier R6/A6) is pretty much the only alternative in 13in. As 13in is virtually non-existent in the USA replacement tire industry from mainstream tire brands having not been used on OE applications since the 80's.

[dc]

Thanks Peter, I stand corrected.

[Swift17]

EMPHASIS ADDED

I think most missed that John asked for criteria on EITHER a spec OR DOT tire, not just DOT

IMHO

The HOOSIER R60 is already the perfect choice, and CURRENTLY MEETS REASONABLE CRITERIA.

1-it's already produced
2-it has support at the track
3-tried and true product, for a couple decades in CFF
4-Contingency programs from Hoosier in past are good, no doubt in future also.
5-It lasts 20 cycles
6-It's a true slick
7-It's hard enough you don't need goofy tire marking rules
8-It's not such a huge leap from current NO TIRE RULE, to a spec slick, but it sure would save the $$$$
9-Sizes are right,
10-quality American tire company, with no supply issues (unlike vintage tires)


/\ above would be my criteria list

THANK YOU MARC FOR TODAY'S "TOP TEN" LIST and dare I say the ANSWER

The HOOSIER R60 IS the "Choice" - need nothing further lets NOT re-invent the wheel, err tire - TO REPEAT, currently made USA tires; well known and tested technology, at track service, as Hoosier already there -a huge benefit; - wear exceptional, [I asked a plethora of CF guys who run them for almost a full year ] due to size, only minor set-up development needed to convert from pure stickies; look good, (without apologies, I like the looks of slicks on my race car; remember those ugly "threaded" F1 tires) etc.,

- Come on, and I am sorry, but the R60s is the only sensible, logical and practical choice; it is about time !!!!

- Candidly, I have NEVER heard any reasonable let alone rational argument not to use them BUT then wonders never cease so .....

proceed ...........


Note/CV: I believe I can speak from some experience having been involved in FF since 1977 and Jason has done over 60 races in the past eight (8) years (admittedly on GYs)- but did race the ARRC on R60s when it was a requirement. Tires ARE are one of the top if not the major economic concern in every one of our years budget

[SEComposites]

Except when it rains when I'm rolling out on my Toyo treaded tires I used to qualify in the dry

[Steve Bamford]

There is little need for track side service with the Toyo's if you have 2 sets with you. Wear is so minimal that it really isn't needed. I am not sure if it would be this way for all DOT type tires or not. Always good to have but not required. With a slick it would be a requirement that you would want to add into the equation.

This is not a plug for the Toyo, this gets back to what requirements the BOD or whomever need to consider when opting for a potential spec tire. If a slick you would require manufacture help at the track.

[Raceworks]

I can't speak for nationwide but our "local" Hoosier dealer does carry Toyos as well. So I don't see that servicing is a problem (at least in SEDIV).

[Germg]

unit cost, $600 to $800 set
durability 10 heat cycles(Pro Level, Club guys will get more)
consistency no more than .2 drop off over the 10 cycles
radial vs. bias, Prefer Bias. Not as much of a setup change
weight, no more than 2 lbs. per tire over current tire
driveabiity If they stay with bias not much will change
ultimate performance, no more than a second slower than current tire anything more will not interest me. Racing is about speed
at track service, need to support those that have supported us. Where is GDY?
universal application (wet & dry) Different for both. Tires should not work in all conditions.
Non cantilever Slicks

This is my wish list.

Jeremy