Again, to be "fair to all concerned" (one of Rotary International's tenets), give us a box rule!!! The CRB's wait and see approach may end up closing the barn door after the horse is long gone. Goodyear and Hoosier went to a lot of trouble and expense for YEARS to build good tires for us racers to fit our rim width limiting rules. The cantilever tires are insanely expensive to build. It just isn't right to allow a single manufacturer a different set of rules to work with. You know maybe other manufacturers would get interested if we had a level set of reasonable tire and wheel rules !! If you were in the race tire business would you want to spend a ton of development money with this kind of deal ?????
American Racer Tires
- Thread starter dellenwood
- Start date
I really don't get the angst on this.
Surely we all agree that no one would have deliberately come up with the apparently very costly to build - and certainly expensive to buy - cantilever slick?
And I think most would agree that tire expense is both a perceived and real barrier to greater participation in Prod?
So why not allow an experiment to see if there is a real, budget friendly alternative? If this works out, I have no doubt that Hoosier is smart enough to roll out their own version, likely much cheaper than a current cantilever slick.
Talk of lawsuits etc makes no sense to me, racing is chock full of mandated single brand purchases, this is much less exclusionary than that. I could cite dozens of examples of spec tires alone.
I'm a happy Hoosier user but good to see a budget friendly experiment!
Al Seim
HP VW Scirocco
Surely we all agree that no one would have deliberately come up with the apparently very costly to build - and certainly expensive to buy - cantilever slick?
And I think most would agree that tire expense is both a perceived and real barrier to greater participation in Prod?
So why not allow an experiment to see if there is a real, budget friendly alternative? If this works out, I have no doubt that Hoosier is smart enough to roll out their own version, likely much cheaper than a current cantilever slick.
Talk of lawsuits etc makes no sense to me, racing is chock full of mandated single brand purchases, this is much less exclusionary than that. I could cite dozens of examples of spec tires alone.
I'm a happy Hoosier user but good to see a budget friendly experiment!
Al Seim
HP VW Scirocco
Well they gave GT3 the box rule and am guessing they(CRB) are waiting to see how it pans out. And I'm curious to figure out how the whole club went from "AR tires suck and aren't worth mounting" to "the sky is falling and the clubs gonna get sued". You guys are worse than my wife. Send me all your addresses so I can send you all some Vallium and Tampons.
blamkin86
Well-known member
Al Seim":3bdnb4qq said:
Because we didn't need a rule change to allow the experiment. You want to run 'em, go for it. Why did the board get involved here? Because the tires wouldn't last on the required wheels?
If the tires can't make it on the provide rim width, then why do they get a free pass on R&D expenses? Aren't the tires cheaper because of that?
My biggest problems are:
1) No real data provided to membership on empirical tire testing (because IMHO the testing wasn't empirical)
2) Rule forced on us right before runoffs (always a bad practice)
3) No guarantee that the current tires, however they were tested, will remain whatever they are. If they make a really fast tire, do they get to keep the 10" width?
4) and by far the biggest- what promise do I get if I spend money on 10" wheels that the rule won't get dumped as soon as someone destroys the field at a majors or the runoffs?
It's simply unfair as far as the eye can see.
Do I wish tires were cheaper? Absolutely.
Is this the way to go about getting cheaper tires, by favoring one manufacturer? No.
JasonIsley99
Well-known member
blamkin86":1qjgkjlq said:
100% agree. I think it is also the wrong message to send to those tire manufacturers who have and continue to support our Club/sport.
I agree with the points above.
One thing I'd add is that, although we all think that the cantilever tire is much more expensive. No one has actually shown that a straight sided tire of the same section width and quality is actually meaningfully cheaper.
The current AR tire (I'm told) is not up to the quality of the Hoosier or GY. Drop the AR tire from 3' and it bounces back 3'. The Hoosier will bounce back a fraction of that. This is just one characteristic of the tire, but it's a good example of the quality differences.
-Kyle
One thing I'd add is that, although we all think that the cantilever tire is much more expensive. No one has actually shown that a straight sided tire of the same section width and quality is actually meaningfully cheaper.
The current AR tire (I'm told) is not up to the quality of the Hoosier or GY. Drop the AR tire from 3' and it bounces back 3'. The Hoosier will bounce back a fraction of that. This is just one characteristic of the tire, but it's a good example of the quality differences.
-Kyle
Meaningfully cheaper to someone that wins and gets free tires or the average racer? To say that the AR tire is not as good without any, and I mean any feedback, is at best, conjecture. Lets all just put the gun back in the holster until someone fast puts some laps on them and supplies feedback. I plan on doing just that ASAP. Back to back with a Hoosier. And yes I will share detailed info with anyone interested.
Chris
PS the goodyear would hit you in the face with the bounce test. And it was damn fast.
Chris
PS the goodyear would hit you in the face with the bounce test. And it was damn fast.
Curtis
Well-known member
zChris":1fwlzs7s said:
A fair test would be like a fair rule. The Hoosier canti on the same wider wheel the AR is tested on despite it's not being designed for such, or the AR on the standard wheel width required for every other tire.
My guess is that any number of readily available non-cantilevered tires are already available that can perform equally, or superior, to the Hoosier canti if given the wider wheel only the AR gets. Examples would be Avon slicks, any number of DOT slicks, and probably even Hoosier's own A6 and R6 DOT tires which I personally have run back to back with the Hoosier cantilevers.
My point, before this thread went completely off the tracks, plus another.
1. If AR is going to hire ex-Goodyear engineers to develop the tire and change it's construction just for SCCA racing why not just do it around the same wheel everybody else has to use?
2. If it's now recognized that wheel width rules limit tire options for competitors, and ways for non-cantilevered tires to compete are needed, why not a box rule that gets everybody in the game?
David Dewhurst
Well-known member
And with a box rule, how much money will the pointy end teams spend to find the ideal rim for tire and track? :think:
kruck
Well-known member
I'd like to thank all of you for keeping this issue CRB-centric, and not blaming this on the PAC.... :wink:
I have looked at this stuff a lot, and my biggest concern with "the box rule" is that you have to make the box big enough to fit the existing cantilevered tires, on the biggest wheel currently allowed in the class. That would mean this:
EP - 25.5" x 25.5" x 11.5"
FP - 23" x 23" x 10.5"
HP - 23" x 23" x 9.5"
Sounds simple enough, but then you have to think of the repercussions. With widths that big, you have to be ok with 10.5" wide Hoosier radial's on a 15x10" wide wheels, that will absolutely destroy everything else, and cost about $350 a piece. And that's just in FP. You then also have to be ok with that same tire being used on your competitors 2000lbs WhatsIt as your 2600lbs ThingamaJig.
If neither of those things bother you, then maybe The Box Rule works for you.
Yes, this would most certainly open things up for additional tire brands to the class, but the barriers to being the fastest and running at the front would become even higher. It's the nature of competition: make a rule, and the designers will design to and around that rule. This is how we got cantilevered tires in the first place. Yes, the box rule would eliminate the need for that wacky design, but it would also mean the ability to put a lot more rubber underneath our racecars, on tires that are of a much more modern and effective design (radial), and force you to sell your existing wheels and buy newer, wider, more expensive ones, so you can fit newer, wider, more expensive tires. That is, if you want to be at the front. All of the track records will be crushed, and the difference between the guys doing the work and spending the money to be out front, and the guys who don't, becomes even bigger, both in money spent and lap times on the track.
But with all that being said, I think at this point, I'd be for it. It would certainly make our rulebook easier, it would open up our category to several new manufacturers, and it would be pretty cool to see a tire war develop between them. At the very least, I'd certainly be for it over this dumb "allowance" we have now.
I have looked at this stuff a lot, and my biggest concern with "the box rule" is that you have to make the box big enough to fit the existing cantilevered tires, on the biggest wheel currently allowed in the class. That would mean this:
EP - 25.5" x 25.5" x 11.5"
FP - 23" x 23" x 10.5"
HP - 23" x 23" x 9.5"
Sounds simple enough, but then you have to think of the repercussions. With widths that big, you have to be ok with 10.5" wide Hoosier radial's on a 15x10" wide wheels, that will absolutely destroy everything else, and cost about $350 a piece. And that's just in FP. You then also have to be ok with that same tire being used on your competitors 2000lbs WhatsIt as your 2600lbs ThingamaJig.
If neither of those things bother you, then maybe The Box Rule works for you.
Yes, this would most certainly open things up for additional tire brands to the class, but the barriers to being the fastest and running at the front would become even higher. It's the nature of competition: make a rule, and the designers will design to and around that rule. This is how we got cantilevered tires in the first place. Yes, the box rule would eliminate the need for that wacky design, but it would also mean the ability to put a lot more rubber underneath our racecars, on tires that are of a much more modern and effective design (radial), and force you to sell your existing wheels and buy newer, wider, more expensive ones, so you can fit newer, wider, more expensive tires. That is, if you want to be at the front. All of the track records will be crushed, and the difference between the guys doing the work and spending the money to be out front, and the guys who don't, becomes even bigger, both in money spent and lap times on the track.
But with all that being said, I think at this point, I'd be for it. It would certainly make our rulebook easier, it would open up our category to several new manufacturers, and it would be pretty cool to see a tire war develop between them. At the very least, I'd certainly be for it over this dumb "allowance" we have now.
I think the American Racer thing is an interesting experiment that - I hope - burns no bridges and represents a genie that could if needed be stuffed back into the bottle. It may yield nothing or might lead to an economical alternative.
Kevin raises some excellent points. If we go "box rule" across the board, the results could be tremendously expensive and I seriously doubt that there would be any retreat, THAT genie would be very hard to stuff back into the bottle.
Al Seim
HP VW Scirocco 1.6
Kevin raises some excellent points. If we go "box rule" across the board, the results could be tremendously expensive and I seriously doubt that there would be any retreat, THAT genie would be very hard to stuff back into the bottle.
Al Seim
HP VW Scirocco 1.6
Curtis
Well-known member
Kevin,
I see your concern however I was thinking about it another way. Instead of designing the box around the existing tire on the widest allowed wheel as you imagine, I instead imagine the Hoosier Cantilever mounted on the existing 7" rim defining the box size. This would mean little or no change in mounted tire size no matter what combination you run.
This way you would:
-not make the existing wheel/tire combination immediately obsolete (We've already kicked Hoosier in the teeth with the AR thing so seems right to keep their existing technology viable).
-not require flare and Bodywork changes for wider tread widths as clearance requirements would be unchanged.
-not screw up competitive performance balance as everybody would stay on about the same amount of rubber (if you allowed more tire across the board some cars would benefit and some not).
A box rule would be difficult change as any change always is, however it would be far easier for competitors, far easier for rule makers, and more fair for suppliers, than the slippery slope we are headed down now. Opening the door to very different, specific wheel/tire combinations, and separate rules requested by dozens of different competitors and manufacturers I have a difficult time imaging as manageable.
Lastly, if you really want to open things up implement a box rule as I imagine it, then within specific classes (like prod) allow a small weight allowance for running a DOT approved tire. If the purpose built and DOT tires were additionally put on equal footing under a box rule, options and price competition would expand dramatically.
I see your concern however I was thinking about it another way. Instead of designing the box around the existing tire on the widest allowed wheel as you imagine, I instead imagine the Hoosier Cantilever mounted on the existing 7" rim defining the box size. This would mean little or no change in mounted tire size no matter what combination you run.
This way you would:
-not make the existing wheel/tire combination immediately obsolete (We've already kicked Hoosier in the teeth with the AR thing so seems right to keep their existing technology viable).
-not require flare and Bodywork changes for wider tread widths as clearance requirements would be unchanged.
-not screw up competitive performance balance as everybody would stay on about the same amount of rubber (if you allowed more tire across the board some cars would benefit and some not).
A box rule would be difficult change as any change always is, however it would be far easier for competitors, far easier for rule makers, and more fair for suppliers, than the slippery slope we are headed down now. Opening the door to very different, specific wheel/tire combinations, and separate rules requested by dozens of different competitors and manufacturers I have a difficult time imaging as manageable.
Lastly, if you really want to open things up implement a box rule as I imagine it, then within specific classes (like prod) allow a small weight allowance for running a DOT approved tire. If the purpose built and DOT tires were additionally put on equal footing under a box rule, options and price competition would expand dramatically.
Curtis
Well-known member
Al Seim":1gbyfugk said:
Al, I disagree.
How exactly could it get more expensive than it is now? We have a wheel rule dictating special, uncommon technology and anybody that can build a tire that works better under that rule can sell it for however much they want. But nobody will because the AR special treatment will stand as an example of just how risky that investment would be.
The Genie is already out of the bottle for good and not going back. If we put the AR genie back in the bottle, racers who purchased wheels and invested in testing to use those tires are screwed. Besides realistically if a small group of competitors can get together and get a special tire/wheel rule approved in a matter of just a few months with no real public discussion once, it will happen again.
Kevin has a valid point that there will be some that cannot fit, say, a 10" wide rim on there car and consequently be at a disadvantage. At least I think that was a point he was trying to make. My new car is a GT3 Miata and was built around a 15x7 wheel. Converting it to a 10" wheel was not possible without cutting the entire front suspension off and starting over. I did manage a 15x9 with lots of cutting and welding. It should be good enough for a test. That said, I will probably run Hoosiers on 7" rims because I think the free tires will offset cheeper/no contingency AR tires. Depending on how well I place. Though I am addamint that we need more than 1 tire brand. 1 tire brand = no reason to sell for a competitive price, as you have no competitor. Which I would imagine thrills Hoosier management. As they laugh all the way to the bank.
Chris
ps I would run the Hoosier radial if allowed on a 10" wheel.
Chris
ps I would run the Hoosier radial if allowed on a 10" wheel.
Curtis":2p2fw0hx said:
Curtis -
I'm pretty sure I won't convince you, but I think it's pretty easy to imagine things getting more expensive...
As a for instance, let's say the hot setup under a box rule turns out to be a $350 (or more, I've found some tires in Europe near $500 each) radial on a 9" rim. So I need to buy a set or two of 9" wheels, chop the heck out of my front suspension to fit them, and then pay $100 more per tire than now. Sounds more expensive to me!!
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think few enough people have a lot invested in the American Racer thing that it could indeed be shut down without disaster. Whether or not it was a good idea, I can't see jumping into a box tire rule in a purist fit of "fairness" without an awful lot of thought.
WRT Hoosier, as noted before I run Hoosiers and like Hoosier. Given that it was just announced that they are the Trans Am spec tire this year I can't imagine that the Hoosier board is seething with anger over the possible loss of a couple dozen Prod car tire sales...