Survey...

G

Greg Amy

Administrator
Staff member
Did you get your survey about wheels/tires in Prod?

I like sending out a survey to current/prior competitors versus a "WDTY?" While a WDTY is helpful, a survey with a link will get a lot more response.

Though I do wish I had more background on the proposals? And, of course, once I completed the survey I was not able to copy/paste the supporting questions, so I cna't telly ou exactly what it was all about... - GA

---------------------------------
Is the current method of specifying a max wheel diameter and width on each spec line, and the specs that exist there today, sufficient as is?

◯ Yes, the current method and specs are sufficient as-is and no changes are needed.

◯ No, I think a more standardized method could better suit our Category.
 
I'd say check your email for the survey. It was partially-described in there but I didn't write it down, and when I went bck it was no longer accessible.

When you take the survey, cope/paste the other two choices here.
 
I took the survey. I believe that we need to keep the LBC cars at 1500# on 6 in rims. Increasing their corner speed even higher than it is now will make for lower lap times for them, and increase the delta to the 2100# cars mid turn. The opposite of what we really need .
Somehow, adding any 9 wide rim with 200TW tires was not on the survey.
 
Is anyone in HP looking for a change? Is Goodyear or Hoosier looking to delete any of our tires? Radial or Cantaliever? Any one with insight here that's willing to share?
 
Sharing my original letter:

Background: EP cars largely fall into (2) main categories of wheel sizes; early model cars that had less than 15” factory wheels that are spec lined at a 15”x7” wheel size, and late model cars with factory offerings greater than 15” that are spec lined at an 18”x8” wheel size. The origin of theses wheel sizes is rooted in both the factory offering, but also readily available commercial racing tire sizes. Due to limited availability of 16”,17” and 18” non-DOT racing tires, many of the cars in the later category choose to run a smaller diameter wheel but the maximum allowable wheel width (8”) provided they have adequate brake clearance. Speaking in terms of radial tires, the optimum tire width for the power/weight ratio in EP is both Hoosier and Goodyear 245 tire size. Many of the current competitors compete on this size, and or an equivalent bias offering. However, the 245 tire, mounted on a 7” wheel, has a less than ideal profile due to the large tire width being mounted to the smaller wheel width. This effects the tire profile and grants an undo advantage to the cars allowed to run the 8” width.



Proposal: Request PAC to seek member input on adjusting all EP spec lines with 15”x7” wheel offerings to 15”x8”.



Justification:

  • Attempt to neutralize unintended performance advantage of 18x8 spec lines running smaller diameter wheels, but maximizing wheel width, and thus perfect tire profile geometry.
  • Align to the current commercially available tire offerings and the appropriate tire profile for those offerings.
  • Competitors not wishing to upgrade still benefit from the same tire size and a potentially lighter wheel offering if choosing to utilize the 15x7. Ultimately, the decision lies with competitor on best combination for their spec line.
  • Cost perspective: reverse compatible for same reason above, competitors not forced to purchase new wheels to comply to updated rule.
  • Does not impact brake rules for spec lines in either example category.


The original request was specifically geared toward EP, however there has been some momentum to do some wheel clean up for quite some time. I can see how maybe HP or even FP is wondering where this is coming from, but EP has been down a path of fitting tires not made for the given wheel size for quite some time, and with the introduction of newer spec lines, the loop hole has been to take advantage of the inherent width that comes with a given diameter (18x8 for example) but utilize a more traditional diameter (15"). The 245 Radial for instance is a perfect fit on this configuration, but the same tire fitted to a 7" greatly compromises the contact patch and wall profile. Similarly, the folks running the bias stuff are always looking to cantilever the biggest damn slick they can on a tiny, narrow rim.
 
Protech Racing said:
Somehow, adding any 9 wide rim with 200TW tires was not on the survey.
Click to expand...
IMO, anything less than a real slick has no place in the production category. There are plenty of categories that should prioritize a true DOT radial before Production... Any flavor of the touring groups including IT and ST make way more sense before production or GT. Let's build 12:1-14:1 compression motors than put road tires on. (n)
 
FWIW our car has gone fastest and run 8 sessions on R7 , not the slicks. Even when we won tires, we replaced them with more R7 . harder , wider. My data testing VS slicks showed the same lateral and almost no loss in roll speed. Will tolerate more pressure when needed ,etc.

For SCCA, and Prod to move forward, Adding a viable long lasting tire to the option list makes a lot of sense and more mid level racers may race a few more races each year . My clients get a full SCCA season out of a set of 100TW and 12 hrs on 200TW . Ask any Prod racer and tire cost is a valid concern . Reduce the cost to play and more will play . Its really simple .
Step up to at least acknowledge the current market .

Maybe simply add " any 100TW on any13-17in X8 wide, allowed at minus 2% . " ( 9 wide would match the current Champcar miata setup. 245/45/15 on 9 wide. )
I use 100 TW as Nangkang(AR1) makes a 13 in tire that we have used. With a good setup, it is about 2 seconds slower than the R7 at Sebring. It needs a slight setup tweak and less rear grip.
I have not seen any 200TW -13 in in the US.
Not enough to go front line fast, but close enough to see the top 3 maybe.

Any new tire rule that doesn't accommodate some form of modern tire is a waste of time IMHO.
 
Philosophically, I think the ruleset should reflect intentions of those looking to maximize the ruleset at a Majors/Runoffs level. Downstream of that, there is nothing preventing a competitor from not building to the max of the rules. I think its silly to have probably the 2nd most engineering/development oriented, closed-wheel class in the club and sell the whole thing short on a road car tire.

As you say, the tires are slower and would not achieve top 3 results at any contested Major or the Runoffs, why do you need a rule provision to net a 3rd-last result? Just run them then... Since this would bring more folks out to play (and remember nothing is preventing those folks from doing it right now), where are they?
 
Last edited:
My final thought,

Regardless of your stance or mine on 100TW-200TW tires, this wheel proposal still applies to whichever rubber you would like to wrap around your wheels and is easily forward and backward compatible to wherever the tire industry, or the SCCA regulations may take us. Saying that there should be some kind of provision for higher TW tires for this to be "worth the time" is some real congressional level hostage tactics.
 
Youre my new hero . SCCA attitude at its finest. Thanks . Your statement reminds me of the tech guy that said that I could not get a logbook for my Chumper truck because its the" Sports Car Club Of America". Hostage levelWTF
.
If any tire rule is updated. We should maybe adjust to the era that we are living in today . Not the era of 40 yrs ago. So. make some room for modern tires for real people that work and try to race.
The box rule of across the board 7 or 8 or whatever you propose . Is fine. You saw my comment regarding the lighter cars going faster. Wider rims with the same tire goes faster. Its not a myth. look it up. I dont think that the smaller cars gaining cornering speed is going to be healthy.

The 100 TW or 200TW option should include some weight off and maybe some rim width . IMHO. The problem with pushing for any other tire option is that those who would move to them are the silent majority . They think that their thoughts dont count cuz they dont race majors or try to go to the runoffs.
 
Protech Racing said:
You saw my comment regarding the lighter cars going faster. Wider rims with the same tire goes faster. Its not a myth. look it up. I dont think that the smaller cars gaining cornering speed is going to be healthy.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head. That is precisely the entire basis of the proposal. We'll just have to agree to disagree that the heavier/higher HP formula vs the lighter/lower HP formula is in some sort of balance right now.

In regards to your silent majority comment... What is the SCCA or any ruling body supposed to do with silence? If what you say is really the will of the Production population, write a letter or at best respond accordingly to this survey. Thats the point of opening this up to the participants.

Tim Schreyer
-Real Person @ work right now figuring out how to pay for an engine rebuild and keep the wife happy.
 
Why dont you simply ask for Ep allowed to use 8 wide. ? Why complicate things ?
Also I dont recall seeing your name on any grid sheets? Do you race ?
 
Protech Racing said:
Why dont you simply ask for Ep allowed to use 8 wide. ?
Click to expand...
Re-read the letter - or to keep it easy, just the title.

As far as the Prod committee and CRB wanting to expand on my nudge, thats their prerogative - obviously they have something to suggest this may suit the 3 classes.


Tim Schreyer
-Real Race Car Driver who typically does just a bit better than make the grid sheet.

www.scca.com

EP - 2020 SCCA Runoffs

65,000+ door-to-door, cone clipping and dirt-throwing individuals make us the largest amateur motorsports club in the United States.
www.scca.com www.scca.com


www.scca.com

Meet The Pizza Bimmer

Thursday morning at the SCCA National Championship Runoffs, E-production driver and Runoffs rookie Tim Schreyer put his pizza delivery car into fif...
www.scca.com www.scca.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top