Spec Tire Update

[Hardingfv32]

From the FV Committee:

The Committee would like to give an update to the Spec Tire being considered for Formula Vee.

With regard to the choosing of a Spec Tire for FV, as everyone probably knows, the primary results of the survey indicated a desire for a longer lasting tire with the feel (experience) of a racing slick, without giving up too much in performance. Also, as is commonly known, only Hoosier came to the table with a test tire targeting those criteria for consideration.

We realize that process of choosing a spec tire has certainly taken much longer than anticipated. As many of you know, the test tire from Hoosier originally had some limited testing in 2016 for feel, experience and performance, but had not been run enough to be tested for longevity. This was mostly due to the time of year the test tires became available. After the 2016 testing, the FV Advisory Committee got to review those test results. The early findings were varied, but the tires had not been tested for longevity. We felt adequate testing for longevity was important to have done. Subsequently, there was additional testing done with that same lot of tires during the second half of 2017 in an attempt to give us some information on performance and longevity. This new information was helpful and looked positive, but still did not sufficiently answer the question of expected longevity compared with that of the current slick.

The Committee is very much aware that FV transitioning to a spec tire will have an upfront additional cost for almost everyone, and we want to make sure that the cost is recovered by the long-term benefit, since cost of ownership is the reason to consider a spec tire in the first place. Making the decision without adequate or conclusive data was too much of a risk, we felt. Hoosier tells us that the FV tire is unlike the tire used by SM and FF of the same compound, not only because of the bias vs. radial difference, but because of the unique characteristic of the Vee chassis and suspension coupled with the dimensions of the tires. So, a direct comparison could not be made to those tires in order to judge expected performance vs. longevity for the test FV tire.

At this time, after discussions between Hoosier and the Committee, Hoosier recommended a specific testing plan that should help answer the questions of both the Committee and the FV community, and the Committee agreed with it. The testing plan will be coordinated by Committee members, and done in conjunction with, and with support from, Hoosier. The plan should have testing commencing sometime in January, and end on the June timeframe. At that time the test results should give us the information needed to understand if the test tires give us the benefit we were targeting, and to decide if we are good to go with them for 2019.

[jpetillo]

Brian, thanks for posting here. The original post is at...

http://formcarregistry.com/interchan...hp?f=15&t=5738

John

[problemchild]

Awesome! If all goes well, they should have those spec tires ready to use for the 75th Birthday Party.

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

Awesome! If all goes well, they should have those spec tires ready to use for the 75th Birthday Party.

Or by the time the class has completely vanished......

[veeracer98]

I wish we had a benevolent dictator to mandate what's best for the class. Committees take forever. Not to diss anyone on the committee I appreciate what you are doing, it's just the nature of the beast. There is nothing big in it for Hoosier or the SCCA. The Fvee drivers are the only ones who will have a big benefit.

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

I wish we had a benevolent dictator to mandate what's best for the class. Committees take forever. Not to diss anyone on the committee I appreciate what you are doing, it's just the nature of the beast. There is nothing big in it for Hoosier or the SCCA. The Fvee drivers are the only ones who will have a big benefit.

Exactly........................ Been saying this for years.

[Speed Sport Engineering]

The committee is trying to do what is best for the class. The assumption that is being made by many is that by not giving in and blindly approving the spec tire, the committee is not acting in the best interest of the class.

As someone who has driven on the proposed spec tire, I can say there is a very high probability many will not like it. It will favor the more experienced and aggressive drivers, and those in the back will find themselves further behind. This proposed tire felt to me very similar to a slick on a cold damp track. It required an adjustment to driving style in order to see reasonable lap times. If someone is not comfortable with a sliding car, they will be way off the pace. Consider the spread in lap times during a rain session. This won't be as extreme, but the concept is the same. Expect a larger spread in lap times for all sessions with the spec tire. That comfort many had of a sticky tire will be gone. I believe part of the problem is the rubber is so hard it's difficult to build up enough temperature to make them work at all on our light cars. Be prepared to drive hard or be prepared to go slow.

What hasn't been tested yet, and what the committee is rightfully doing so, is doing a solid comparison between the spec tire with various sessions on it compared to a sticker spec tire. The worse thing that can happen right now is a spec tire is approved only to find out afterwards that a sticker set has a huge advantage. They want this information prior to giving a blessing.

I firmly believe as a class we are shooting ourselves in the foot with this. I understand on this forum this is not a popular opinion. But this forum is also not a full representation of the class. If we are trying to make the cars slower, less fun and more difficult to drive, and increase the spread in field lap times, we are going down the right path. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I've been doing this long enough to know this is not the answer people are expecting.

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

The committee is trying to do what is best for the class. The assumption that is being made by many is that by not giving in and blindly approving the spec tire, the committee is not acting in the best interest of the class.

As someone who has driven on the proposed spec tire, I can say there is a very high probability many will not like it. It will favor the more experienced and aggressive drivers, and those in the back will find themselves further behind. This proposed tire felt to me very similar to a slick on a cold damp track. It required an adjustment to driving style in order to see reasonable lap times. If someone is not comfortable with a sliding car, they will be way off the pace. Consider the spread in lap times during a rain session. This won't be as extreme, but the concept is the same. Expect a larger spread in lap times for all sessions with the spec tire. That comfort many had of a sticky tire will be gone. I believe part of the problem is the rubber is so hard it's difficult to build up enough temperature to make them work at all on our light cars. Be prepared to drive hard or be prepared to go slow.

What hasn't been tested yet, and what the committee is rightfully doing so, is doing a solid comparison between the spec tire with various sessions on it compared to a sticker spec tire. The worse thing that can happen right now is a spec tire is approved only to find out afterwards that a sticker set has a huge advantage. They want this information prior to giving a blessing.

I firmly believe as a class we are shooting ourselves in the foot with this. I understand on this forum this is not a popular opinion. But this forum is also not a full representation of the class. If we are trying to make the cars slower, less fun and more difficult to drive, and increase the spread in field lap times, we are going down the right path. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I've been doing this long enough to know this is not the answer people are expecting.

Just to be clear I know many of the committee members and have the highest respect for them and truly believe that they are doing the responsible thing which is the proper due diligence. With that being said I still believe one person, with the best interest of the class only, could be more effective. Where you find that person I don't know.

[Hardingfv32]

...with the best interest of the class only...

What is best for the class is not knowable and/or highly subjective.

Brian

[mikehinkle]

When I first started racing Vee I read a lot of what people had to say on this forum about tires. As it turns out, at least in my area, most of the Vee drivers I race with don't even visit the Apex. It would seem that the vast majority of Vee racers do not comment on this forum but luckily do respond to the surveys.

I thought radial tires were a no brainer. Tires are expensive and don't seem to last long, especially when your new and over driving the car and/or don't have it setup correctly.
My opinion has changed 180 degrees. Do I wish there was a tire that was cheaper and lasted longer? Yes, obviously.

If what Michael has said is true I would be against changing from what we have now to the new 'spec' compound. We ALREADY have a 'spec; tire in reality. What happens if we just call the current tire a spec tire....

Has anyone else who has bought tires lately think we are already running the new compound? Here in NE a few of us seem to have gotten harder tires. After the first run on track you can barely tell that the tires are used. The molding strip on the tire still exists after the first session. I have never seen this previously.

I hope that some of us regional racers have access to the spec tire for testing this year. If I could buy a set to try this year I would.

[Hardingfv32]

...The committee is trying to do what is best for the class...

The committee can only do what is best for the class based on their personal perspective. The committee is made up of only Major event competitors all but one who were at this years Runoffs. Almost all the committee members participated in the Hoosier contingency program this year. And almost all have 2-3 sets of tires left over from the Runoffs to use next season. It is stated that this forum is not representative of the class... well neither is this FV committee.

The fact is that this committee is trying to negate the class survey that requested a spec tire. Any number of excuses have been put forward for the delays. They claim they want to test the durability when in fact their is no scientific baseline available for the current tire. How do you make a judgement without a baseline?

Today it is being said that the new tire is hard to drive on and will cause a larger spread in competitor performance. An easier tire to drive on was not the main selection criteria. Higher durability was. It is completely understandable that a more durable tire is going to be harder compound. This is a normal compromise.

So now we are looking at a new test cycle/series. Who are they going to find to pound away on the old and new tire to get the durability info they desire? Someone from the committee? And when exactly can this testing be done and under what temperature conditions.

Seems odd that SRF and SM did not have this hard a time choosing a spec tire.

Brian

[Daryl DeArman]

As someone who has driven on the proposed spec tire, I can say there is a very high probability many will not like it. It will favor the more experienced and aggressive drivers, and those in the back will find themselves further behind. This proposed tire felt to me very similar to a slick on a cold damp track. It required an adjustment to driving style in order to see reasonable lap times. If someone is not comfortable with a sliding car, they will be way off the pace. Consider the spread in lap times during a rain session. This won't be as extreme, but the concept is the same. Expect a larger spread in lap times for all sessions with the spec tire. That comfort many had of a sticky tire will be gone. I believe part of the problem is the rubber is so hard it's difficult to build up enough temperature to make them work at all on our light cars. Be prepared to drive hard or be prepared to go slow.

Many may not like it in the beginning.

At one time I went from an open tire class to a spec tire class that was competitive for 11x as many heat cycles. One tire provided grip like you were on rails, the other felt like you were on ice (relatively speaking). The spec tire provided very little tactile feedback and less audible feedback when you were in the happy zone. When you made mistakes in your driving and/or set up it was magnified on the watch.

Like any other change, some folks adapt quicker than others. If you are going to race slow cars, it might as well be fun. A freer feeling car, dancing around at a limit many more folks can attain is more fun for all.

IMO, in order to be successful the primary concern should be cost per competitive heat cycle. All the rest isn't nearly as important, folks will figure it out.

Of course, I can understand how it doesn't make business sense to build something that you will sell a whole lot less of.

Interested to see how this all pans out.

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

Seems odd that SRF and SM did not have this had a time choosing a spec tire.

Brian

Why would that seem odd? Those two groups are essentially run by a dictator (SCCA) They took the time to put out the request to the tire manufactures, tested the submitted tires using some of the respected drivers within the respective classes, looked at all of the data and made a decision. I am sure that not everyone within those classes is in 100% agreement with the decision, however, at least it is a decision and it seems to be working. BTW they are the two largest (dictator) classes...... Coincidence?

FV doesn't have the numbers anymore to motivate multiple manufacturers to design and build a tire that is cheap and long lasting. The business model isn't very attractive......

[smsazzy]

Why would that seem odd? Those two groups are essentially run by a dictator (SCCA) They took the time to put out the request to the tire manufactures, tested the submitted tires using some of the respected drivers within the respective classes, looked at all of the data and made a decision. I am sure that not everyone within those classes is in 100% agreement with the decision, however, at least it is a decision and it seems to be working. BTW they are the two largest (dictator) classes...... Coincidence?

FV doesn't have the numbers anymore to motivate multiple manufacturers to design and build a tire that is cheap and long lasting. The business model isn't very attractive......

SRF and SM also already had a spec tire. They were only changing manufacturers.

[problemchild]

The committee can only do what is best for the class based on their personal perspective. The committee is made up of only Major event competitors all but one who were at this years Runoffs. Almost all the committee members participated in the Hoosier contingency program this year. And almost all have 2-3 sets of tires left over from the Runoffs to use next season. It is stated that this forum is not representative of the class... well neither is this FV committee.

The fact is that this committee is trying to negate the class survey that requested a spec tire. Any number of excuses have been put forward for the delays. They claim they want to test the durability when in fact their is no scientific baseline available for the current tire. How do you make a judgement without a baseline?

Today it is being said that the new tire is hard to drive on and will cause a larger spread in competitor performance. An easier tire to drive on was not the main selection criteria. Higher durability was. It is completely understandable that a more durable tire is going to be harder compound. This is a normal compromise.

So now we are looking at a new test cycle/series. Who are they going to find to pound away on the old and new tire to get the durability info they desire? Someone from the committee? And when exactly can this testing be done and under what temperature conditions.

Seems odd that SRF and SM did not have this had a time choosing a spec tire.

Brian

Wow! How insightful and accurate
Even referencing the conflicts of interest with the tire contingency. Good job! Without tire vendors and tire deal recipients controlling the FV leadership, FV should have had spec tires 3 decades ago.

The FV leadership has even managed to slow down Hoosier, who may be the most responsive tire company on the planet, throwing every possible obstacle at the process ..... meanwhile the FV group with a spec tire in place continues to flourish.

Is anyone surprised that he typical spec tire competition spectrum will emerge ..... namely the best guys stay the best guys, the slow guys stay the slow guys, and the midfield rearranges itself slightly as the good drivers without money move up and the mediocre drivers with money move back some? That is a reason to push forward.

[veeracer98]

Steve Davis for Vee Czar.

[B Farnham]

With regards to the tires being harder to drive on and spreading the field more I think a longer lasting tire would counter act that.

For the most part at the more well attended majors you need a new set of tires every weekend to be competitive. Those who cannot afford to do so running mid pack or towards the back are giving up performance. If a longer lasting tire was in place hopefully 3-4 heat cycle tires would be more on par with new tires. So if they are harder to drive on but the grip level between the competitors is more similar then little should change in the hierarchy.

As stated the only concern is that new tires will have a significant advantage over 2-4 heat cycle tires. Once you have that data what other testing needs to be done?

I was fortunate to win some free tires this year but would gladly give that up for the good of the class.

It gets old reading about the doom and gloom, FV is the strongest open wheel class in the country and will continue to be. It's the most affordable open wheel class and all that's needed is to reduce costs where we can. The disposable items such as brakes and tires are the obvious choices for achieving that.

[smsazzy]

It gets old reading about the doom and gloom, FV is the strongest open wheel class in the country and will continue to be. It's the most affordable open wheel class and all that's needed is to reduce costs where we can. The disposable items such as brakes and tires are the obvious choices for achieving that.

Well said. I’ve been hearing about the impending death of FV since I started racing.

I wish people understood how much both committees, the current one and the prior one, both of which I’ve had the honor of serving on, look at all angles of issues to balance the need for updates as appropriate, while keeping a stable platform that is the mainstay of FV. It may look slow from the outside, but we spend hours every month on conference calls and emails amongst ourselves as well as with parts suppliers and the various engine builders, etc. Also with the boards up the stream from us to try to do what is best for the class. No decision is made without all the information, and I’m sure you would all agree that is a good thing.

[Hardingfv32]

SRF and SM also already had a spec tire. They were only changing manufacturers.

1) I have heard this need for information mantra before. It is just the Committees excuse for not doing something. You guys are smart enough to know that you are not going to have all the answers surrounding the spec tire before a decision is made. Club racing simply does no warrant the budget to do research that matches the FV Committees standards.

I think the disc brake subject shows the bias involved with the Committee. The disc brake proposal was put forward without any existing hardware or track testing. Why is the spec tire being held to a higher standing?

2) Changing manufactures means they change the tire construction and compound which is more complicated than what we are asking for with FV. They (and FF) also made the change in less than three years! The Committee goes not want the Spec Tire. These delays are not caused by incompetence.

What say the Committee?

[smsazzy]

Brian, thanks for posting here. The original post is at...

http://formcarregistry.com/interchan...hp?f=15&t=5738

John

See here.

[jpetillo]

I appreciate hearing all the comments from these posts. I’ll comment on points in Brian’s earlier post, since it’s complete, well stated, candid, and seems to have all aspects brought up in this one thread. I’ll try to “answer the mail” by attempting to be informative on the points that Brian and the rest have brought up.

The committee can only do what is best for the class based on their personal perspective. The committee is made up of only Major event competitors all but one who were at this years Runoffs. Almost all the committee members participated in the Hoosier contingency program this year. And almost all have 2-3 sets of tires left over from the Runoffs to use next season. It is stated that this forum is not representative of the class... well neither is this FV committee.

This is true that the committee can only do what is best for the class based on their personal perspective. It’s the reason for having a committee as opposed to a dictator - to minimize the effect of individuals’ personal preferences, and to help uncover all the issues that need to be considered, as Stephen mentioned. About contingencies influencing the committee decisions, the committee is overseen by the Formula/Sports Racing Committee that truly cares about the health of the class and personal preference by the committee would not be tolerated by the FSRC. You can argue whether the committee represents the class, but, as Stephen mentioned, the committee does work with many folks in the class outside the committee - considerably more than those we see post on this or any other forum - to inform their decisions. Doing this involves many hours. In that way the class’s interests get represented, in my opinion, reasonably well.

The fact is that this committee is trying to negate the class survey that requested a spec tire. Any number of excuses have been put forward for the delays. They claim they want to test the durability when in fact their is no scientific baseline available for the current tire. How do you make a judgement without a baseline?

Many perhaps don’t know this, but this committee was formed some time after the test spec tires were distributed to folks (see Michael's post). The direction the committee is going with the testing I hope suggests that we are supporting, as opposed to trying to negate, the survey. With regard to a scientific baseline and testing, yes, this is difficult as Brian suggests, with tire performance changing on tracks that change conditions throughout the day, etc., etc. But this is why Hoosier is supporting this effort, bringing their experience to help us coordinate testing that will lead to an informed judgment.

Today it is being said that the new tire is hard to drive on and will cause a larger spread in competitor performance. An easier tire to drive on was not the main selection criteria. Higher durability was. It is completely understandable that a more durable tire is going to be harder compound. This is a normal compromise.

More durability is certainly the primary reason for having a spec tire, however it was not the only metric that resulted from the survey, which is what is guiding the SCCA. The testing will target answering how well the tires meet these metrics.

So now we are looking at a new test cycle/series. Who are they going to find to pound away on the old and new tire to get the durability info they desire? Someone from the committee? And when exactly can this testing be done and under what temperature conditions.

Great points, and the committee is open to suggestions. Other tires like those for FF had coordinated testing plans to choose their tires. We feel FV needs to also have a coordinated testing plan, and now we have that opportunity. I’m excited about that. Just because it’s later than any one of us wanted doesn’t mean we should sidestep proper testing, especially since the opportunity has now presented itself. With Hoosier working with the committee, I expect most of these concerns will be mitigated.

Brian, and everyone, thanks again - all well taken.

If folks want to truly understand what the committee does, want to make a recommendation or suggestion, or just complain, or just personally be heard, please contact a committee member. I have offered this several times here on ApexSpeed.

Please take us up on it. Although, the posts will probably become less juicy as a result.

John