Now that the poll on the spec tire issue is over is there a means to learn the final results?
Spec Tire Poll
Now that the poll on the spec tire issue is over is there a means to learn the final results?
Poll results
Go to the home page, then go to the bottom and the poll results of the various polls is there. Looks like about 4 to 1 in favor, therefore, it will never happen.Originally Posted by T644HU07
American Racers on 1998 Van Diemen FF
As I think this thread is very important and it's dipping towards the bottom of the page under the weight of Honda engines, Ford support, and other pressing matters, I thought I would add my personal experience using American Racer 133's on my 1998 Van Diemen FF (pushrods both ends) and get the thread bumped to the top as well. We normally run on the Goodyear 430 as a spec tire for our regional championship (San Francisco region SCCA, we run on Laguna Seca, Sears Point, and Thunderhill).
I ran 4 sessions on a set of 3-cycle old AR's (generously donated for the test by Bill Steele) at a combined test day/race weekend at Thunderhill under very favorable conditions.
THEY WERE GREAT!!!!
Great fun, a very workable tire, and this is with a VDP piston setup in my triple Penske's (so much for the common recommendation of a linear setup needed). The ONLY initial change I made to the car was to lower the front ride height 1/2" to accommodate the taller AR's (the rears were about the same). The car worked better on the AR's than it ever has on the 430 (only about 1/2 second off my personal best on 430's with the AR's) going from somewhat understeery to somewhat oversteery. A slight shock change in one of the sessions took care of the oversteer.
The tires are much more fun than the Goodyear 430, you can slide them around without worry, much less on rails at the limit. More like, well, an un-winged race car. (If I wanted to plant the car I would have bought an FC). I think the general estimate of 2 seconds a lap slower on our tracks would be about right. Still ahead of the Club Fords. Of course it would depend a lot on the particular course conditions, weather, track abrasiveness, driving style, initial car setup and other factors but I think about a 2% speed loss is about what I would expect, maybe a bit less if I really got the setup right and had a good day.
I have spoken or listened to several people that have slapped AR's on their 'modern' (pushrod or rocker on both ends) FF's and they ALL state their cars have run fine with them with little or no tweaking (aside from the front ride height). John Robinson (DB-6) even said so in this thread.
Frankly in my opinion anyone that says they are against the concept of going to a hard tire because they don't want to deal with setup changes is way off base. Maybe with a wierdo car, but so far DB-1's, DB-6's, and my VD have had no trouble. I say try a set of AR's and see.
In that spirit, the tire committee of our region is about to suggest to the group allowing the use of the AR 133 in next year's regional championship, probably with its own points tally and championship. Those that want to continue to run the 430 can do so, those that want to run the AR's can do so. We most likely will have two points drops so a driver could conceivably use one as a test to see how their car will work on AR's without losing a drop for their kids graduation or some such. It seems the region is trying to make all weekends doubles so as to reduce the number of events, so two drops are necessary, but it plays into the idea's plan well.
Granted the AR's are not without issues. They sometimes are out of round and different diameters as stickers, but both those problems can be addressed by proper break-in/scuffing. Also, consistency can be a problem, occasionally a set comes through that just isn't as good as another, and sometimes a set comes through that is better than others. I don't hear the Club Ford guys complaining too much about it though, and we often have 8-13 CF's running on the AR 133. The Club Ford guys generally feel the AR 133 is good value.
So a 2% loss of speed, 75% less money spent on tires (AR's almost half the cost of Goodyears or Hoosiers, last at least twice as long), a car that works better and is more fun to drive. Gee, I just can't decide....
Tom Duncan
Go with Radials.
The would cost a little more but they are very consistant over the life of the tire. Even cars like Formula Atlantics can turn consistant laps on them right up till the Cord shows thru!I know as I have seen that for myself.
Old School, what exactly is great about that?
D, the problem with radials are they cost a lot more than AR's. I understand your point about running them for a long time (and the consistency in size and roundness tends to be second to none), but when you are trying to get a spec tire rule through, you will always have the flat earth contingent of "old hands" that will swear up and down that new tires each race are the only way to run up front. For these numbskulls, the only argument that works is the "even if you buy new tires each race, you are still going to save lots of money", hence the importance of an inexpensive tire.The would cost a little more but they are very consistant over the life of the tire. Even cars like Formula Atlantics can turn consistant laps on them right up till the Cord shows thru!
Of course, after a few seasons when everyone (including the flat earth folks) get a chance to see how little is to be gained running new tires each race and how much is to be saved by actually managing tires, then everyone settles in and loves the hard compound spec tires. It is just all the noise and preconceived notions that have to be delt with up front.
I like the AR price and I also like the thought that they are good on any chassis.
Q? (and I know the earth is not flat!) if we changed country-wide to allow only the AR133 can AR keep up with the step function in their demand? I know what their marketing department will say, but just what is their factory capable of and just as important, thier supply chain?
If I am Gy and Hoosier, I immediately pack all of my FF mold hardware away and chase the open markets, which makes a return to 'normal' iffy.
Now here is where I am getting a bit interested. how do AR's compare to Dunlops? I suspect they may be very close in performace and then allowing those two as the only tires to run might address the risk of a supply problem?
I have recent experience with Dunlop and Hoosier 60's and am convinced that CF would be better off with Dunlops as the only tire. Long life, light weight, no rain tires allowed, and massive fun factor. And the Canadian series runs them so got to Mosport etc
Anyone know if AR is big enough to supply all the FF teams in SCCA?
I have started a separate post regarding a proposal for the adoption of a control tire for FF.
Tom Valet
Bill, I like the point you make for those resisting because they feel the need to have new tires every race: "even if you buy new tires each race, you are still going to save lots of money", hence the importance of an inexpensive tire. Of course this only works with a cheaper tire and in this case the only candidate is the AR. A good argument, I hadn't thought of it quite so concretely.
Roux, in regards "...I also like the thought that they are good on any chassis.", I think that can't be said at this point as I have only spoken/read/talked to those that ran the DB-6, DB-1, and my Van Diemen (but thats probably half the FF's in the country). It would be nice if any drivers of other chassis could chime in about their experiences. My personal feeling is 90% of the FF's out there can be easily adapted to a hard tire.
In regards AR being able to handle the demand for supplying a tire I think at the National level it would take some time before a spec hard tire rule could be put into place, thereby allowing a company to gear up for the demand. I agree there would be some concern about companies that currently supply FF tires...how much impact would it have if say AR was selected as the Natiional tire? What would Goodyear and Hoosier do? Would thay take their football and go home and swear to never come back? Do they sell enough FF tires to care? We just don't know. Does anyone know out there?
I feel it is mandatory to establish a SINGLE spec tire, not a choice of two or more. I would think whatever company made the less desireable tire ("I go 1/2 second faster on AR's than I ever did on Hoosier R60's") would change their compounding a bit to get the advantage back, and it would see-saw back and forth resulting in tires that last fewer and fewer cycles. On the other hand has anyone run in a FF or CF spec tire class where more than one tire was allowed? Lets here from you.
The issue with the Dunlop tires is they aren't slicks. Sorry, I just think FF racers in the US will not put up with a treaded tire (outside of a rain tire). I agree they could be a good choice, or at least could be considered in the choice pool, but I think its too high a cliff to climb. As Bill Steele once suggested to me FF is something of a religion (to varying extents) with participants, and in this case a treaded tire (notwithstanding other series and all of the rest of the world I understand that run on a treaded tire) is just too blasphemous.
I see Tom Valet has started a seperate post for a control FF tire...maybe interested parties in this thread should continue on there?
Tom Duncan
Gy R430
Tom
I am trying to get a handful of SE drivers to use the GY R430 next season in both National and regional races. Can you tell me how many heat cycles you got from R430 compare to R160.
Thanks
James Lee
Reply to James
While heat cycle count and usable life of a race tire is very dependent on the individual track, cars, drivers, weather, etc, I can tell you we would get 4 solid competitive cycles out of a 430 with just about any setup. This would be vs 1.5 cycles at the most with a 160. If you have a very well balanced car you could get 6 but that was pushing it. If you had an unbalanced car you would get maybe 3 before burning up the tires at whatever end of the car didn't work (usually the fronts). Time difference between a sticker/fresh scrub and the next cycle was about 1 second (still too much) vs 1.5 seconds for a 160. Subsequent time differences further down the cycle order were less. When the tire went away (and it could do that VERY suddenly) they dropped 2 seconds. I had one session on 6 cycle tires in which I set a personal best at Thunderhill and a lap later they lost 2 seconds. Very dramatic. Not like a harder compound tire which seems to just keep going a tiny bit slower each cycle until you reach the cord.
There was some initial resistance to the 430 rule (from no rule) which we enacted half way through the 2007 season (to allow the tire dealer to get us tires...Goodyear actually made the 6.5" for us), in fact a couple of guys quit at least partially because of it. One had some sort of deal with Hoosier, the other felt it was against the principals of Formula Ford, that Club Ford was the province of that sort of rule (which frankly made sense). Well in both cases the two drivers came back and are happy with the 430, but now one is very much on the bandwagon for an even harder tire as he is up against budget restraints and un-neccessary spending just like the rest of us. For him, and many of us, cheaper (and easily obtainable...see the last paragraph) tire costs equal more racing.
There were no (significant) changes necessary to accommodate the 430 if you came from other Goodyear slicks. There was no loss of overall performance as guys were still breaking track records (in the SF region...no mean feat).
The 430 will go a ways to saving some money in that you will have to maybe buy tires every other race vs each race, but those that are willing to spend the money will still buy tires for each race and will have an advantage over those with some cycles on them as the gap between a sticker and subsequent cycles is still too large. Perhaps the greatest value of the 430 rule was it gave you usable (instead of trashed 160's) tires for testing and practice.
My recommendation is try the American Racer 133. They will work fine on your cars, I am sure (so far all modern cars have reported they work fine) with no more than a little tweaking. You will find you can get at least 6-10 good cycles out of them (if you have a well balanced car) and maybe more depending on the variables listed at the beginning of this response. The gap between sticker and subsequent cycles is smaller, and you will spend 25% of the money you now spend on 160's. (AR's $550 as set vs $850, last more than twice as long). You will still be 2 seconds faster than the Club Fords (at the least the guys running up front) but probably 2 seconds slower than you were on 160's (or 430's).
Just get one guy to try a set of AR's, I think you will be convinced. Maybe even go in together and buy a set and pass them around on a test day. Lower the front ride height by about 1/2" to accoommodate the larger front tire and drive it. You will not be disappointed.
Tom Duncan
Last edited by Tom Duncan; 11.03.09 at 3:49 PM. Reason: caant' speel
American Racer update
Had another conversion with Scott McAdoo at American Racer.
In regards rain tires they can make a tire of FF/CF spec in a rain soft compound that could then be hand grooved by us. They currently do not have an in-house groover. This could be fun actually, we could start playing with groove configuration.
In regards the inconsistent diameter/circumferance it very well could be coming from over-pressuring the tire while seating the bead. His engineers have stated (and I personally have experienced this) the tire can be stretched (thus the dimensions changed) by over-pressuring.
He is digging up the exact bead seat pressure and recommended maximum pressure and when I get that info I will post it here.
Tom Duncan
Too many heat cycles
Just calculated that my AR 133s had 51 heat cycles this year. Maybe they have deteriorated but I didn't notice it! Made for a pretty cost effective season
Keeping it simple...
Unless you go with something like the Skippy Treaded tire route, why don't you leave rain tire selection open? Let people run whatever they want for rain tires. Wither that be a new tire, a used tire or a hand grooved slick. Having this option gives people freedom to get what fits their budget. Having multiple brands both on the used and new marketplace avail helps keep costs low.
If you go the treaded tire route (Not a fan of that approach, but maybe worth considering), keep in mind it is almost like having 2 tires, so if cost is higher, it is OK as long as it is less then Dry + Rain. If new rain + Dry cost $1200, a hard long lasting $800 set of tires is still not a bad deal.
Only downside to open rain tire approach is that switching brands between dry and wet may force you to make addl car setup changes. I believe with some brands, if you stay in the same brand, the rain tires offer you a higher ride ht automatically.
Most of the guys I run with, buy their rain tires used. They get bagged and stored. In some cased never get used and end up getting tossed and replaced over time.
Based what I'm reading here, the GY-430 is too soft to accomplish what we want. When I ran the Hoosiers R-60s we'd run them down to the cord and they were still competitive. The tires had such longevity and consistency that we'd pass them between our selves.
For example, some guys on principle would start with fresh tires each season. Stickers are always better to do alignment/setup/testing work. A guy would run them for a season and pass them down to the guy running on a tighter budget (The guys running them down to wear indicators). Or we'd buy the fresher tires from Berget. I never saw a difference in performance between the very used and the less used.
When the r-60's became unavail, we were told to transition over to the AR. Performance of the AR was comparable. Fields were mixed, those trying to milk last mile out of he Hoosiers and those who bought the ARs. We saw winners and fast laps with both brands during this period.
Some other factors:
- The AR price was lower making transition easier.
- The rear AR were a hell of allot easier to mount as they did not have the extreme cantilever of the Hoosiers.
- After over a season on new AR's, I sold the car, subsequent owner raced a few racers with the the season old tires. I never personally got to see how long they would last but would not be surprised if they approached the Hoosier longevity. If they only got 75% of the way there, no big deal as they were cheaper, thus cost per mile is about the same.
One other factor to consider are:
- The savings time-wise not having to get tires mounted and dismounted. For me, it was - 2 hrs doing by hand
- The savings money-wise not having to consistently be mounting, dismounting, disposing and balancing tires. When I had local shop do it, $ 60 per set.
- Fewer tires in landfill
- Wear and tear on rims. I've had 2 rims destroyed. I've had numerous nicks, scratched thru the mount and dismount process.
- You go thru less Nitrogen. It's always a hassle getting my tank filled. A 3 hr trek.
AMBROSE BULDO - Abuldo at AOL.com
CURRENT: Mid Life Crisis Racing Chump/Lemons Sometime Driver (Dodge Neon)
CURRENT: iKart Evo Rotax 125 Kart
GONE: CITATION 87/93 FC - Loved that car
GONE: VD RF-85FF , 1981 FIAT Spider Turbo
AR date codes
Tom,
While it may be possible that bead seat pressures might be at the root of some of the size variances, my belief is the main problem can be attributed to variances in production tolerances.
I have found that making sure the production code matches on each end greatly reduces the chance of getting grossly mismatched sizes side to side. In my experience, the sizes seem to be fairly consistent in a given production run (a specific date code).
As you pointed out earlier, if you get a pair of fronts or rears with different codes and get a circumference mismatch side to side you can inflate the smaller tire to 50 PSI, leave it out in the sun and just about any discrepency can be addressed.
My guess would be if we adopted the AR 133 as a National Spec tire, we could get AR to agree to greatly tighten up their dimensional specs, production run to production run.
Based on everything I have read in these last few months on the subject, my sense is the AR tire is not going to be the choice if a National FF tire is adopted. There seems to be an inherent bias against using a tire that the CF guys use.
Bill,
AR doesn't currently offer the complete package necessary to do the job at the National level as I understand it, and I think if they did step up to compete with Goodyear and Hoosier the tire would necessarily be higher priced.
While the tire is effective for its price range, there are inconsistencies that generate the feeling it is inferior in build quality to either Goodyear or Hoosier (wait, see third paragraph). One crew chief told me Hoosier and Goodyear have a good technical presence in the paddock and are helpful with development and information but AR has no such service. They don't promote (but do have on offer in the online catalog) a FF tire the equivalent (sorta, no one I have talked to seems to know for sure) to the Goodyear 430&160/Hoosier R25&R35 compounds (M131 and M132 compounds...the current CF compound is M133). As has been mentioned they don't offer a rain tire (but did say they could mold the CF tire with gumball rubber that we could then groove).
Frankly my impression is they have found a customer base Hoosier and Goodyear have left unserved...an inexpensive tire and barebones support that generally gets the job done in the dry. If they were to compete with Hoosier and Goodyear for a National spec tire they would have to step up the program and I don't know if they have the interest. I will ask Scott McAdoo of AR next time I talk to him. As I said, even if they did have interest the tire would have to cost more, and that negates a major advantage to the AR solution.
I had not thought of checking production codes for keeping the tires all within the same batch, that makes sense. So that might be one way we can tighten up the perception of quality control issues. Maybe one of the differences between Hoosier/Goodyear and AR is how they inventory, transport and distribute their tires.
I don't want to give the impression I fault AR in any way, I think they make a great product for the price (and a great tire to drive on) and I appreciated it for the 19 seasons I ran CF. If they were pricing their tire in the same territory as Hoosier/Goodyear then we could bitch.
As I see it now Hoosier is the strongest candidate, as they make and sell (and have for years) the R60A. Goodyear hasn't made an equal tire in years, and when they did make the R600 is was a 'disaster' according to an informed source.
Ambrose (Racer27),
I agree, the rain tire should be open. As you noted many of us have 10 year old rains that might not fit right but as we don't use them very often (at least some of us that live in light precipitation areas) we can deal with it. I would be unhappy if we have a rule that wouldn't let me run the rain tire I already own and make me shell out $600-$800 for rains I didn't need to replace and will use once in a while. Of course those that race a lot in the rain will be keen on sister tire to their dry tire.
I agree, the 430 is too soft, you save some money but it doesn't go far enough. We have been using the 430 for the last three seasons in the San Francisco region SCCA so we have some experience with this.
So why did the R60's become unavailable? And when was that?
Most reports say the AR's and R60's are about equal in performance and longevity, if one has an advantage over the other in some circumstances it's usually reported as being small.
Interesting about the Hoosiers being easier to mount, that's a factor for me as I try to do my own mounting to save money.
Tom Duncan
Last edited by Tom Duncan; 11.11.09 at 10:55 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote