2008 tire type/points discussion (not width)

[cosm3os]

There should be no penalty for brand of tire. I agree that treadwear doesn't tell the story.

 

It should be 0 points for street tires (non-R compound) and +7 for R compound tires. Leave it at that.

 

This should encourage Hoosier, Kumho, Nitto, Toyo, etc to make better tires.

 

Then let everyone choose which tires they want to run. If price is a factor than buy the fastest tire your wallet can afford. These are all R compound tires and all priced within $25-$75 dollars of each other (at least in my size - I didn't research all sizes and brands). If one is inferior than everyone will stop running it and the manufacturer will realize they need to step it up to stay competitive.

 

Unfortunately for us the slowest tire of this group is Nasa's friend Toyo. I'm affraid rules will be made (or kept) to protect their interest. With all of Toyo's support of Nasa that is probably fair to some extent.

 

There is too much of a difference to lump the 10 pt tires in with everything else. But as has been argued above, you could probably put the 5 and 7's together.

 

Don't tell me Toyo's are slow. Results speak for themselves!

[dwaleke]

Don't tell me Toyo's are slow. Results speak for themselves!

 

Then why are they only a +5 tire and not a +10 tire? It is because they are slower. If they are not then your point backs up my suggestion.

 

Thanks!

[andy38]

Just as another data point, I ran R888s in a 235/40x17 at Nationals. While they look like they will last a very long time tread-wise, their behavior was very much the same as an RA-1, that is initially, not quite as fast as the C50 Kooks I've used for USTCC, but more consistent and heat resistant.

 

In group J I had a battle going that after about 13-14 laps caused them to go off, and drop from 1:42s to 1:44s. With just a short cooldown, they were right back on though.

[cosm3os]

Don't tell me Toyo's are slow. Results speak for themselves!

 

Then why are they only a +5 tire and not a +10 tire? It is because they are slower. If they are not then your point backs up my suggestion.

 

Thanks!

 

I thought you meant in relation to other 5 pt tires.

[RACER-X]

Plus, combining 5 and 7 tires in a 5 class is one rules change that wouldn't screw anyone by bumping them up a class next year running the same set up.

 

 

This makes sense, espicially if 7 point tires are being droped by the manufactures. Why not lump the 10 and 7 pt tires together for +7 points and leave the rest at +5 points? Hell, make all R-compound tires + 5 points. Each manufacture will tell you that the UTGQ rating is not so you can compare tires from different manufactures, its used to compare different tires from the same manufacture. I've been running NT01's since last year. I've also ran the Hoosier's too. For me, my lap times were a smidge better with the NT01's.

 

Different tires will definately respond differently on different cars. Say that 3 time in a row!

[cosm3os]

You can't combine 10 tires with 5 or 7 tires. There is definitely a difference between hoohoos and the like and any of the 5 or 7 tires. However, I think we all argee that there is little difference between the 5 and 7 tires. Thus, two classes would do--5pt and 10 pt.

[dominojd]

Just as another data point, I ran R888s in a 235/40x17 at Nationals. While they look like they will last a very long time tread-wise, their behavior was very much the same as an RA-1, that is initially, not quite as fast as the C50 Kooks I've used for USTCC, but more consistent and heat resistant.

 

In group J I had a battle going that after about 13-14 laps caused them to go off, and drop from 1:42s to 1:44s. With just a short cooldown, they were right back on though.

 

I wouldn't call holding up a car in another class a battle.

[Markus]

OK - sorry to keep this going...but...

 

If everyone will please flip to pg 85 of the last issue of GRM (not the current one - the one with a blue Subie wagon on the cover) they have a race tire test. I know GRM's tests aren't always the most scientific and also recognize that this invovled a very short circuit (38 sec lap times) that is more of a cross between an autox and a road course.

 

But still - it ranks the Nitto (5pt tire) and Hankook Z214 (10pt tire) as EQUAL in lap time. It also ranks both of them as better than a Hoosier R6 (10pt tire).

 

I have heard that GRM is going to do another test with more tires (this one didn't include anything from Toyo or the Kumho V710's) but it still seems to confirm what I said at the beginning of this thread (admittedly in an overly sarcastic fashion):

1) DOT treadwear ratings don't mean squat for assigning points

2) The Nitto really might need to be bumped up in points or the tire point system in general might need to be reviewed

 

Also note - why this is important: Pretty much the only time trials sponsors/contingency money available is from brake pad companies and tire companies. That means it is important to keep things "fair" in these areas. Why would Company X offer contingencies if Company Y has a big advantage under the ruleset?

 

Discuss.

 

- Mark

[Varkwso]

OK - sorry to keep this going...but...

 

If everyone will please flip to pg 85 of the last issue of GRM (not the current one - the one with a blue Subie wagon on the cover) they have a race tire test. I know GRM's tests aren't always the most scientific and also recognize that this invovled a very short circuit (38 sec lap times) that is more of a cross between an autox and a road course.

 

But still - it ranks the Nitto (5pt tire) and Hankook Z214 (10pt tire) as EQUAL in lap time. It also ranks both of them as better than a Hoosier R6 (10pt tire).

 

I have heard that GRM is going to do another test with more tires (this one didn't include anything from Toyo or the Kumho V710's) but it still seems to confirm what I said at the beginning of this thread (admittedly in an overly sarcastic fashion):

1) DOT treadwear ratings don't mean squat for assigning points

2) The Nitto really might need to be bumped up in points or the tire point system in general might need to be reviewed

 

Also note - why this is important: Pretty much the only time trials sponsors/contingency money available is from brake pad companies and tire companies. That means it is important to keep things "fair" in these areas. Why would Company X offer contingencies if Company Y has a big advantage under the ruleset?

 

Discuss.

 

- Mark

 

While I genuinely like GRM - their testing is for a magazine and limited in scope. Basing new rules supportted on an article does not seem rational to me. Since I am a fan of Nitto's and I use them now. They are not better than 710s or R6s on my car on a road course where high speed and heat plays a factor - they last a heck of lot longer I might add but they are heavier and a little slower.

[Markus]

Basing new rules supportted on an article does not seem rational to me.

 

Is basing rules on potentially meaningless DOT treadwear ratings any better?

 

When I first posted this - people asked for more information, so I'm just adding what I found. As I mentioned above, I know GRM isn't always the most scientific - but I'm not sure a 5pt tire should be that close to a 10pt tire regardless?

 

- Mark

[kbrew8991]

the tires were also ranked on average time, which is irrelavant to TT (but maybe not PT). if we re-rank by best time they fall into this order:

 

36.94 (100.00 index) - 'kook Z214

37.25 (99.16 index) - BFG R1

37.49 (98.53 index) - NT01

37.56 (98.35 index) - Hoosier R6

 

now from my autocross background where we used this index idea off of the best time to assign championship points within each class I've gotta say a 98ish index off FTD is decent, but still a long way behind at the same time. A street tire could probably put up a 96ish index I'd educatedly-guess

 

also, the biggest single issue I have is that they made no attempts to maximize the car's setup to each tire, so all that test really says to me is a WRX with X, Y, Z mods and A alignment settings works well with NT01s, and not so much Hoosiers or other tires on a tight autocross-ish course that isn't Mid-Ohio or any other comparable course. It really just doesn't seem like a relavant article whatsoever to me...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

there are really 3 options we've got to classify tires as I see it:

 

treadwear - pros - more resolution between tires, so we get 5, 7 and 10 point groups. cons - uses arbitrary ratings from the mfg which aren't nessicarily consistant with real world grip, speed, etc

 

tread/no tread pros - pretty non-arbitrary from our standpoint, but it could be pretty consistant and seems to align with real-world results from Nationals. cons - what about shaving or running tires until they become non-treaded, also doesn't take into account how really soft/hard they are and how quick they may be opening the door for a tire company to make something specifically to beat the rules

 

lump everything together - pros - no more complaints from anyone except to bring back the old system. cons - everyone runs Hoosiers or BFG R1s like other clubs (and other series within NASA), costs go up, etc

[andy38]

 

also, the biggest single issue I have is that they made no attempts to maximize the car's setup to each tire

 

Right - that's huge as to pertains to PT/TT rules discussions. 'The Tire to Have' can change dramatically based on setup.

 

 

 

there are really 3 options we've got to classify tires as I see it:

 

treadwear - pros - more resolution between tires, so we get 5, 7 and 10 point groups. cons - uses arbitrary ratings from the mfg which aren't nessicarily consistant with real world grip, speed, etc

 

tread/no tread pros - pretty non-arbitrary from our standpoint, but it could be pretty consistant and seems to align with real-world results from Nationals. cons - what about shaving or running tires until they become non-treaded, also doesn't take into account how really soft/hard they are and how quick they may be opening the door for a tire company to make something specifically to beat the rules

 

lump everything together - pros - no more complaints from anyone except to bring back the old system. cons - everyone runs Hoosiers or BFG R1s like other clubs (and other series within NASA), costs go up, etc

 

The other 'pro' for treadwear is that it's very easy to check.

 

Yet another solution might be to arbitrarily rate tires based on past performance in to the 5 / 7 / 10 (or similar) categories and just list them all in the rules...although the overhead in having someone do all the research and more big lists in the rules may not be worth all that. How about a committee.

 

It does seem like reducing the number of categories into fast DOT R's and Toyoesque DOT R's might simplify things though.

[e36jakeo]

I think the whole point of time trial is to develop competitive classes. Some folks will want to try and win with Horsepower mod points and sticking with a street-tire. Others will want max corning and will have low HP but good suspension and set up. Right now, with the way we count tires, no one with a street tire has a chance at winning. On a 2 minute course (Sears, T-Hill) a good street tire is probably 4 seconds slower per lap than an RA1. Yet moving up to the RA1 only adds 5 points. I think the goal is to have a 2-second separation between classes (i.e. TTA is 2 seconds quicker than TTB, which is 2 seconds quicker than TTC). This is ideal, of course. So in saying that, 20 points = 2 seconds, so each point should theoretically take 0.1 seconds off your lap time. Race tires are counted as 5 points or 10 points suggest they are worth 0.5 to 1 second per lap when, in actuality, they are worth WAY more than that (4 seconds +).

 

I personally think Toyos RA1s and similar compound should be worth at a minimum 10 points (20 would be more like it) and Hoosiers, Hankooks and similar more agressive tires should be at least 10 points more than that. This is speaking from experience: I have been running Toyos for 2 years and this past weekend turned a 1:55.5 as my best. I switched to Hankooks and turned a 1:52.44 -- 3 FULL SECONDS quicker. My RA1s were on their last legs, but even at their best I have NEVER felt grip like I did when I stuck on the Hankooks (51s - road race, not autoX).

I want the person who is the best driver to win, not who spends the most money. It is clear the way it is set up that a well-set up car on the stickier rubber have a huge advantage over anyone running Toyos or (especially) street tires. The point system should better reflect this.

[cosm3os]

The reason they are only 5 pts is cause everyone's using at least those treaded r compounds. Most mods everyone does are freebies, and I believe the 5 pts are kinda the same thing.

 

There's no increased expense to running RA's. You're gonna use a couple of sets of street tires, too. BTW, what's wrong with the person who spends the most money winning? Winning means pulling out all the stops! Sorry, that's THE reality of racing.

[StealthTT]

BTW, what's wrong with the person who spends the most money winning? Winning means pulling out all the stops! Sorry, that's THE reality of racing.

 

Apparently you forgot section 3 of the Time Trial rules:

 

3 Intent

The intent of these rules is to provide mandates to ensure that all vehicles are modified within clearly established limits, to strive for an even platform, in which a contest of driving skill may provide the most talented drivers with great rewards...............The rules shall be applied in a logical manner that seeks to provide competitors a safe and fair venue for competition.

[cosm3os]

Didn't forget it, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong. To the contrary, the rule assumes that everyone has maximized their car in their class. Only then does it become a test of driver skill. If you won't or can't spend the money to maximize the car, then you can't complain. That's racing.

[GooRoo]

The reason they are only 5 pts is cause everyone's using at least those treaded r compounds. Most mods everyone does are freebies, and I believe the 5 pts are kinda the same thing.

 

If this was true then there would be no points for those tires. As it is they're saying they're only worth the same as a wing and splitter, or shocks and springs or any other combination of small mods that add to five points that have nowhere near the same improvement as adding r-comps.

 

I do agree with you on the other points you made.

 

The other (more pragmatic) issue with this is, can you imagine the problems with the rules if they changed the points to accurately reflect the time savings for tires? Almost every car in TTD and up would be bumped out of the top of the system to TTS.

 

A more workable solution would be to give points back for running street tires (10? 20? 40?) and then assume everyone else is at least running the lower end r-comps and remove the 5 points for it.

[cosm3os]

The point is the points for RAs is nominal cause everyone's doin it. I don't recall anyone in my region who is running streets.

[kbrew8991]

if you want to argue costs in favor of making street tires competitive, price a set of Yokohama Advan Neovas or the Bridgestone RE01R (what everyone would run if they chose streets) before you do so....

 

and at SE tracks, especially Robeling where I've got at least 1 data point, street tires aren't at as much disadvantage as you'd think. That track favors large amounts of grip, you spend close to 2/3rds of a lap at the lateral limits of adhesion, and a guy on RE01Rs was very close to me on V710s, and he had a few more points to spend on his car...

 

so bottom line, street tires are more competitive than you think, but there aren't really any advantages in costs savings or longevity IMHO which is why you aren't seeing that option explored

[loudes13]

bingo!

 

race tires are cheapest way to make your car faster. And street car people, they keep your car streetable (since you put your soft riding street tires back on to driver home).

[Trevor57]

I second that. It's cheaper to have brakes, and tires that don't have to double duty.