robbodleimages Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 I understand that the new Toyo R888 is like the other DOT race tires. The 275/40-17's are happier on a 10" rim. The RA1 was not. With the new tire can we allow 10" wide wheels in AI for '08?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99cobra2881 Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 The dohc cars are wonderful the issue is they will nver make a smooth fat torque curve. They aren't non competitive I don't beleive just not as easily comeptitive and be prepared to do alot of shifting.I was shifting like a crazy man during nationals goiing from 2nd to 3rd and back to 2nd in the whole back section. I hate to speak too much about this with no actual race experience but I have an ample amount of seat time in a DOHC car on track. I have 4.30s in my street/OT car and they honestly make the car what it is. Shifting consists of rowing 3-4 to 4-3 and occasionally shifting down to 2nd gear for slow bus stop type corners. The car gets itself out of the corners in a serious way for having AI HP with street car weight. For my race car I 'hope' that a few parts will help the DOHCs lack of lowend and torque curve. Either Im right or Ill be a nice AIX backmarker, which Im fine with that. The mere thought of being out there racing is what appeals to me most right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nape Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 If you have AI power and street car weight, why not run AI instead of AIX? Just an idea, back to your regularly scheduled rules discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99cobra2881 Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 If you have AI power and street car weight, why not run AI instead of AIX? Just an idea, back to your regularly scheduled rules discussion. Sorry for the confusion, thats in my 0T/street car. **Edit** "My reasoning for building an AIX car instead of an AI car is due to the fact that NASA is weak in the Central Plains Region. SCCA has a good presence here and runs a full race schedule, ITE or B Prepared are my choices for SCCA racing. AI HP is too low in either of those two classes, so I had to build for HP and race AIX for the 1-2 races that are decently close to me each year. I would love to build an AI car but until NASA gets more than a foothold around here thats not going to happen!" Race car weighs 3k empty, 3200 lbs with driver and should exceed 9.5-1 HP to weight ratio. Only a trip to the dyno will tell exactly by how much but it 'should' be around 400 rwhp. I have further weight reduction planned for this winter. Anthony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbodleimages Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 since i've seen no response as yet, i will repost my question. Is there any objection to allowing 17x10 wheels for 2008. The specs on the new Toyo R888 are different from the RA1 from what I've read, making a 10" rim more suitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshallmosty Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Unless there is a track width increase for the Fox body cars, I'd be against the 10" rim... (and also because I just bought a new set of 9.5's). With my 9.5's spaced to clear my brakes, I'm right at AI limit, and there isn't any more room inboard with the C/O's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbodleimages Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 My main issue is mounting the tire on the recommended rim size. From reading recent reviews on this tire the 275-18's were recommended to be on a 10" rim. At present the Hoosier, Kumho. BFG, and Hankook 275/40-17 are recommended to use the 17x10. The R888 from what Ive seen is moving to that spec with the new tire. At present the RA1 is the only DOT 275-17 that recommends 9-9.5. I understand your situation, but I think its not the best idea to require that everyone run a rim narrower than recommended specs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_tone Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 My main issue is mounting the tire on the recommended rim size. From reading recent reviews on this tire the 275-18's were recommended to be on a 10" rim. At present the Hoosier, Kumho. BFG, and Hankook 275/40-17 are recommended to use the 17x10. The R888 from what Ive seen is moving to that spec with the new tire. At present the RA1 is the only DOT 275-17 that recommends 9-9.5. I understand your situation, but I think its not the best idea to require that everyone run a rim narrower than recommended specs. I'd be opposed to allowing a 10" rim as that would require even more cutting and even more expense for the fox body chassis. Regardless of what the recommended wheel width is I don't know of anyone having an issue getting performance out of a 9 or 9.5" rim with a 275/40/17. I have been running these tires for over 10 years and I personally have never had or even heard of anyone having an issue with a sub 10" rim. Have you? Rule change for the sake of change is a very bad idea. This series needs rules stability more than anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbodleimages Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 These are not the tires you ran for ten years. That is my point. You think that running a 9.5" is that much of a disadvantage if someone else is running a 10? I want to use the wheel size that the tire is best engineered for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff F Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 since i've seen no response as yet, i will repost my question. Is there any objection to allowing 17x10 wheels for 2008. The specs on the new Toyo R888 are different from the RA1 from what I've read, making a 10" rim more suitable. You've seen no responses because it is a question that doesn't deserve an answer. Despite that, I'll answer it: Yes, there is objection from everyone ALREADY RUNNING in the series to opening up wheel width and potentially making their equipment obsolete. It doesn't deserve an answer because you haven't even done the basic research to make a proposal. I don't know where you get your information from, but consider this: 1. The spec tire for our series is the RA1, and in the maximum size, 275/40R17 the approved rim widths are 9-11", with a 9.5" measuring (nominal) wheel. Even in 18", the 275/35R18 has THE SAME approved rim width and measuring rim. Link 2. The series has no plans to go to the R888 anytime soon, it has been discussed before. 3. The R888 doesn't even exist in a 275/40R17, and in 275/35R18 the approved rim widths are... 9-11", with a 9.5" measuring (nominal) wheel. Link 4. The approved & nominal rim widths for a given tire size are an industry standard, so you will see the same range & nominal for any tire of a given size. I want to use the wheel size that the tire is best engineered for.Then I would recommend using the nominal size, 9.5" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99cobra2881 Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Jeff, So if there is objection from "eveyone" as you say to opening up the rules on rim width and making everyone's equipment obsolete, why do you think it's a good idea to allow the use of 5.0l mod blocks? Doesnt that do the same thing as this? It makes the current 4.6l mod motor obsolete and adds cost to the series to stay up front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMan Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 ahhhhhhhh my favorite thread of the year, every year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic_Cobra Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 since i've seen no response as yet, i will repost my question. Is there any objection to allowing 17x10 wheels for 2008. The specs on the new Toyo R888 are different from the RA1 from what I've read, making a 10" rim more suitable. If we aren't allowing the R888, why don't we hold off on the 10" wheel for AI (if at all) until the tire is legal (assuming it will be). I'm not excited about buying another dozen 10" rims and another dozen tires, just to keep up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbodleimages Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 This is really just conversation. We are talking about one half inch on the wheel. Without a dyno at the track, anyone that can bring extra horsepower will and the arguing over the 0.5" of wheel seems like minusia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST#97 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Jeff,So if there is objection from "eveyone" as you say to opening up the rules on rim width and making everyone's equipment obsolete, why do you think it's a good idea to allow the use of 5.0l mod blocks? Doesnt that do the same thing as this? It makes the current 4.6l mod motor obsolete and adds cost to the series to stay up front. where are you getting that a 5.0L mod block is illegal? Buy a 93 mark 8 block, send it to VT Engines and for $2400, you have a 5.0L OEM block. Complete short blocks are in the $4400 range. Are you talking about the new FRPP 5.0L block? If so, there is nothing different from that block than what is in my car! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swhiteh3 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 where are you getting that a 5.0L mod block is illegal? Buy a 93 mark 8 block, send it to VT Engines and for $2400, you have a 5.0L OEM block. Complete short blocks are in the $4400 range. Are you talking about the new FRPP 5.0L block? If so, there is nothing different from that block than what is in my car! Yes. we're talking about the FRPP block, which by the current rules is not legal in the series. You can still use an OEM aluminum block and bore and stroke it to whatever you'd like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99cobra2881 Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Since the HANS or HANS equivalent head and neck brace is now required in '08 lets quit the BS and make fuel cells and fire suppression systems mandatory as well. Why mandate one safety item yet overlook another? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nape Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Why mandate one safety item yet overlook another? 'cause I don't want to open up my wallet for any more safety equipment when I feel safe enough racing without it. I'm going to miss an event to pay for a H&N device, I'd rather not miss a season because someone else doesn't think we're safe enough. If you want to go above and beyond, have at it. For the record, I have a legal fuel cell and a 10lb fire extinguisher but I'm getting really tired of the dual moving targets, the CCR and AI rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMan Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 If it keeps up, then the ultimate safety conditions will be achieved...no one out on the track Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.