G. Jay
Basic Member
Posts:234
 |
| 21 Apr 2012 02:17 PM |
|
The May Fastrack is out with proposals for a 200 wear rating in RT and ST catagories. If you really hate the Toyo, even if no one in your class is using it, this is your chance to be heard. Again. |
|
|
|
|
sjfehr
Basic Member
Posts:360
|
| 21 Apr 2012 02:32 PM |
|
R1R: 140
RS3: 140
RE11: 180
AD08: 180
XS: 180
Star Spec: 200
This will impact a lot more than R1R, and I can't say I agree with it. |
|
|
|
|
redwhale240
New Member
Posts:
|
| 21 Apr 2012 02:42 PM |
|
I'll get this out there first, I haven't been around on this forum for a while but... Are there really that many people that are just loathing one particular tire after it has been out for a couple YEARS... |
|
|
|
|
G. Jay
Basic Member
Posts:234
|
| 21 Apr 2012 03:19 PM |
|
It's a solution looking for a problem IMO. The tire situation is stable and working well. Not that 140 is a magical number but why mess with a good thing, at least in ST?
The choice of 200 is surprising. 180 would have made more sense with Bridgestone being such a loyal and valued sponsor.
I wonder whether this proposal makes more sense in the RT catagory. I'm not really up on that story. |
|
|
|
|
talon95
Veteran Member
Posts:1872
|
| 21 Apr 2012 03:52 PM |
|
deleted rant, see next post. :-) |
|
|
|
|
talon95
Veteran Member
Posts:1872
|
| 21 Apr 2012 04:19 PM |
|
So I guess this would leave the Dunlop and Falken as the only 2 tires? Shutting out Hankook, Bstone, Kumho, Yok, and Toyo. Although after thinking about this more, I guess you could make the argument that the only 2 that are competitive right now are the Hankook and Toyo. In which case, you still have 2 competitive tires, just different ones.
Dave G.
|
|
|
|
|
boss002
New Member
Posts:34
|
| 21 Apr 2012 05:33 PM |
|
I'm agreeing with the 180 making more sense then 200, but hey what do I know I race a fat pig on old R Comp Kumho's |
|
|
|
|
PMcCartin
New Member
Posts:76
|
| 21 Apr 2012 06:12 PM |
|
NO!
how do we send in a letter of comment? Just like a letter for clarification? |
|
|
|
|
IanF
Basic Member
Posts:136
|
| 21 Apr 2012 06:39 PM |
|
What???
I imagine one or both scenarios occurring:
1. Hankook, Toyo and Bridgestone simply change the molds so the number says "200".
2. Those three say "screw you guys..." and stop offering Autox tires.
This is not the manufacturers' fault, so why punish them for it? The real solution is an independent treadwear rating standard instead of the smoke and mirror system used now. |
|
|
|
|
Mark Hirt
Veteran Member
Posts:1443
|
| 21 Apr 2012 07:04 PM |
|
Actually...... When the Bridgestone RE-01 was coming out I saw one with NO tread-wear rating on it. When asked the engineer stated, we will put on whatever SCCA say it needs to be
O and there actually is a DOT test for the tread-ware rating |
|
|
|
|
murph1379
Advanced Member
Posts:626
|
| 21 Apr 2012 07:27 PM |
|
I know the STAC was considering the "Toyo problem" (the issue that most of their tires only have the softer rubber for 1/2 their tread or less) and part of me wonders if this is their way of throwing a bone to the "Toyo haters" while rigging the process against the solution?
While I applaud the SEB for trying to defend against treadwear creep as happened in stock, I'm not sure this is the way to go about it. The exclusion list is pretty straightforward. |
|
|
|
|
talon95
Veteran Member
Posts:1872
|
| 21 Apr 2012 07:54 PM |
|
Yea, I was against this 100% initially, but after thinking about it, this is exactly the type of pro-active change that needs to be done to prevent us from going down the same path as the DOT-R tires. I'm not really sure this is necessary (yet), but I can't fault the STAC for considering it at least. ATM, nothing seems to really be broken, but many times if you wait until it is broken, it's too late (see DOT-R tires).
And as far as exclusion lists go, seems like they never have any teeth. Doesn't now, didn't in stock previously either. Maybe there is a good reason for it, but nevertheless they don't. So the only alternative is a rules change.
Dave G.
Firmly sitting on the fence... |
|
|
|
|
mlane350z
Basic Member
Posts:185
|
| 21 Apr 2012 07:57 PM |
|
The second this passes....the second all the tire manufacturers stamp their tires as 200TW. It doesn't solve anything. |
|
|
|
|
ricky bobby
Advanced Member
Posts:887
|
| 21 Apr 2012 08:36 PM |
|
Do not like. I'll write a letter opposing. There is a nice mix of tires for the ST category as pointed out above.
The Toyo is optimal for a certain type of car and it is not dominating the category.
Nationals results last year: Toyo was on ST, STX and STS winners. ??? on STR winner (results say N/A, indicating a mixed setup). STU Dunlop.
Keping the Civic out of STX this year and I bet that the tire winner changes for that class. Let the current changes play out first, geez. |
|
|
|
|
mwood
Veteran Member
Posts:2230
|
| 21 Apr 2012 08:54 PM |
|
Note this proposal came from the SEB, not the STAC or SAC.
The 200 TW is the standard for many other organizations which mandate street tires and is a number that can be supported by all of our current manufacturers, including Toyo...it just won't be with a single, soft compound R1R. We've (SAC) spoken with the tire reps and they all acknowledged as much.
I don't get how ST* basically goes to non-street cars (with the emissions and ECU allowances) and then needs a less racy tire...makes no sense, to me.
For RT, I think the 200 TW makes sense and support it. The marketplace will provide solutions, if 200 is the standard across most all organizations.
|
|
|
|
|
G. Jay
Basic Member
Posts:234
|
| 21 Apr 2012 09:21 PM |
|
PMcCartin wrote:
NO!
how do we send in a letter of comment? Just like a letter for clarification?
Respond to the SEB here. Mine's already in. |
|
|
|
|
talon95
Veteran Member
Posts:1872
|
| 21 Apr 2012 09:31 PM |
|
mwood wrote:
Note this proposal came from the SEB, not the STAC or SAC.
The 200 TW is the standard for many other organizations which mandate street tires and is a number that can be supported by all of our current manufacturers, including Toyo...it just won't be with a single, soft compound R1R. We've (SAC) spoken with the tire reps and they all acknowledged as much.
I don't get how ST* basically goes to non-street cars (with the emissions and ECU allowances) and then needs a less racy tire...makes no sense, to me.
For RT, I think the 200 TW makes sense and support it. The marketplace will provide solutions, if 200 is the standard across most all organizations.
Which organizations? I've seen this comment before, but I never see any examples. NCCC is 110.
People don't want a less racy tire, they want a tire that they can afford. Unfortunately racy tires cost more money.
Dave G. |
|
|
|
|
G. Jay
Basic Member
Posts:234
|
| 21 Apr 2012 09:55 PM |
|
IanF wrote:
This is not the manufacturers' fault, so why punish them for it? The real solution is an independent treadwear rating standard instead of the smoke and mirror system used now.
If a change were made it would be important IMO to give the tire manufacturers a lot of notice, say two years. We surely don't swing a big enough bat to ask them to bend over backward for us and really should show appreciation for the support they give.
I'm less cynical about the wear ratings. They're given the latitude to cheat the number down but not up and some probably have. I could see the Bridgestone or Hankook re-rated to a 200 but the R1R would suprise me. |
|
|
|
|
PMcCartin
New Member
Posts:76
|
| 21 Apr 2012 09:57 PM |
|
talon95 wrote:
Which organizations? I've seen this comment before, but I never see any examples. NCCC is 110.
People don't want a less racy tire, they want a tire that they can afford. Unfortunately racy tires cost more money.
Dave G.
Lemons IIRC
thanks for the link to send a letter.
For my outside perspective. This seems like a silly way to kill off one specific size of a certain tire. Why not just figure out how to run that tire? or change cars???
|
|
|
|
|
sjfehr
Basic Member
Posts:360
|
| 21 Apr 2012 10:01 PM |
|
For reference, NASA Autocross uses 0-40, 50-130 and 140+ for classing.
http://www.nasaproracing.com/rules/...lasses.pdf
It's also important to note that treadwear ratings are determined using a test that simulates "normal" driving and a poor indication of autocross wear. I get roughly the same amount of runs from a set of 200 treadwear Star Specs as 30 treadwear V710s. |
|
|
|
|