Jump to content
Cobra4B

Decision on 255s... single out one tire? Why?

Recommended Posts

jason

Is this the can of worms or the quagmire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bnjmn
Is this the can of worms or the quagmire?

 

We are still on the slippery slope. Slicks in the rain at Mid-O on the dry line. We have to destroy the Hoosier 255 to save it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Varkwso

I think we should get 10 mm more tire, 10 more hp, or 100 pounds off for every 1000 posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TurboShortBus
I think we should get 10 mm more tire, 10 more hp, or 100 pounds off for every 1000 posts.

If that was the case, then S2000 guys would get points back for running Mugen hardtops.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ILIKETODRIVE
I think we should get 10 mm more tire, 10 more hp, or 100 pounds off for every 1000 posts.

I got a looong ways to go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vettedoctor
I know Joel, but that was 2 pages ago (and seemingly overlooked/forgotten) - I thought it was such a good point that it needed to be reiterated and expanded upon.

 

And your suggestion above raises the question - what exactly is a "fair" tire rule? What was so unfair about the current one? Do actual tire measurements get us any closer to fair?

 

There has to be some sort of industry standard - they have to aim at certain criteria to make a 225/40/15 or a 275/40/17 and there is a certian amount of "wiggle room". This is where you can determine if a certain tire could be subject to "re-classing".

 

The 255 was obviously an overacheiver but looking at the spec's on the 245/40/18 there is some plus sized number there too, especially if you look at the sectional width. There is also the slightly larger 285 and the extra sized 295/40/18 that should probably be looked at.

 

I sent Jeff an e-mail a while ago and it looks like I'll have to do it again to see if there are any other tires that should be looked at before we waste time (and money) figuring out ways for them to work just to have them "re-classed".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
obzezzed350
I think we should get 10 mm more tire, 10 more hp, or 100 pounds off for every 1000 posts.

If that was the case, then S2000 guys would get points back for running Mugen hardtops.

 

Mark

 

and run in TTD...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drivinhardz06

The 255 was obviously an overacheiver but looking at the spec's on the 245/40/18 there is some plus sized number there too, especially if you look at the sectional width.

 

so what ARE we (NASA) looking at, sectional width, or tread width? The sidewall denotes sectional width, which is not what touches the track...

 

Mounted, the sectional width will vary a good bit by how wide of a wheel you mount it on. the tread width, not as much, unless you mount tires on rims 2.5" narrower (which I'm amazed at how many people do this).

 

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tiretech/techpage.jsp?techid=200

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dans2k
I think we should get 10 mm more tire, 10 more hp, or 100 pounds off for every 1000 posts.

If that was the case, then S2000 guys would get points back for running Mugen hardtops.

 

Mark

 

and run in TTD...

 

thats a good idea lets make it -5 points an I can run A6's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bnjmn

Easiest fix is limiting how much you can go down in class and leave the tires as-is. No more than -20mm, bump base TTB to 275. Fixed. Everyone wins (and saves money). Keeps the spread from TTA to TTB within a reasonable range (vs what is now...if you want to see anomalies look no further than lap spreads from TTA to B, then look at B to C). Greg got beat by a C car in '09; C winner would've gotten 3rd in B this year. No C in 2010 (hmmm).

Fender flares and rolling are free, so complaints about rubbing are rubbish.

Rotational mass arguments are for bench racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
speedengineer
Easiest fix is limiting how much you can go down in class and leave the tires as-is. No more than -20mm, bump base TTB to 275. Fixed. Everyone wins (and saves money). Keeps the spread from TTA to TTB within a reasonable range (vs what is now...if you want to see anomalies look no further than lap spreads from TTA to B, then look at B to C). Greg got beat by a C car in '09; C winner would've gotten 3rd in B this year. No C in 2010 (hmmm).

Fender flares and rolling are free, so complaints about rubbing are rubbish.

Rotational mass arguments are for bench racing.

 

I don't think this argument has anything to do with how far down (or up) you go from your base tire size. The fact that Hoosier makes a tire that is way wider (wider than the usual) than what is says it should be has nothing to do with whether you've dropped down (or up) 20mm in width. So by you're method, a car that base classes in TTB with its base of 275 could compete in TTA with the 'cheater' 255 tire against cars that base class in TTA that are not allowed to use the 255 since it is more than -20mm? Does not compute...

 

On another note, I don't think the solution is to measure actual tread width in tech...simply not practical enough - those guys always seem troubled/busy enough.

That leaves either:

a) Hoosier f'd up and we should penalize users of this tire

or

b) Meh, let'em run it, it's only an extra 1/2" of rubber - every car isn't classed exactly equal, nor is every tire. Deal with it.

 

PS: +1 for S2000's getting points back! If that's approved I'll sit here filibustering all night till we reach 1000 posts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sperkins

No one here is going to change the ruling on this tire so if it affects you, deal with it and move on.

You guys keep talking crap about Hoosier and we just may lose their amazingly generous contingency program.

Hoosier is one of the very few manufacturers that support grassroots racers - and they have for years. Let's not F it up.

I say lock this thread and delete it entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
speedengineer
No one here is going to change the ruling on this tire so if it affects you, deal with it and move on.

You guys keep talking crap about Hoosier and we just may lose their amazingly generous contingency program.

Hoosier is one of the very few manufacturers that support grassroots racers - and they have for years. Let's not F it up.

I say lock this thread and delete it entirely.

 

I don't think anyone here actually thinks anything less of hoosier just because one of the tires is a bit extra-wide. An inconvenience perhaps.

 

As for their contingency program (which is awesome btw), trust me, they don't provide it solely out of the generosity of their heats. With ~80% of TTers on Hoosier tires, and say only ~20% of those winning free tires, guess how many people are buying new Hoosiers every two track weekends? Doubt they're going to take away contingency. Even if Hoosier does read this thread, maybe they'll take note/feedback of the issue and try and label tires more consistently in the future.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cobra4B

Who is knocking Hoosier? I love Hoosier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bnjmn
Easiest fix is limiting how much you can go down in class and leave the tires as-is. No more than -20mm, bump base TTB to 275. Fixed. Everyone wins (and saves money). Keeps the spread from TTA to TTB within a reasonable range (vs what is now...if you want to see anomalies look no further than lap spreads from TTA to B, then look at B to C). Greg got beat by a C car in '09; C winner would've gotten 3rd in B this year. No C in 2010 (hmmm).

Fender flares and rolling are free, so complaints about rubbing are rubbish.

Rotational mass arguments are for bench racing.

 

I don't think this argument has anything to do with how far down (or up) you go from your base tire size. The fact that Hoosier makes a tire that is way wider (wider than the usual) than what is says it should be has nothing to do with whether you've dropped down (or up) 20mm in width. So by you're method, a car that base classes in TTB with its base of 275 could compete in TTA with the 'cheater' 255 tire against cars that base class in TTA that are not allowed to use the 255 since it is more than -20mm? Does not compute...

 

On another note, I don't think the solution is to measure actual tread width in tech...simply not practical enough - those guys always seem troubled/busy enough.

That leaves either:

a) Hoosier f'd up and we should penalize users of this tire

or

b) Meh, let'em run it, it's only an extra 1/2" of rubber - every car isn't classed exactly equal, nor is every tire. Deal with it.

 

PS: +1 for S2000's getting points back! If that's approved I'll sit here filibustering all night till we reach 1000 posts!

 

No, that is not the idea. The idea is to narrow the gap btw A and B and to prevent the expensive situation (where we might be) where the guy with the most, smallest stickers wins.

 

The above -20mm rule does the same as upclassing the 255, but limits the race to the biggest pile of the smallest stickers/mod $. The 245 A6 is a zero point mod in TTA. Want to go against a TTA Z06 w/390hp, dual adjustable shocks, springs and a fresh supply of tires in a width that people running Mustangs think is normal? An Evo/STi owner (honestly, the only other cars affected) rejoicing to the current rule should think twice, given that they already get walked by 365hp Z06s on straights. Your B car still has a chance either way (adopt the 245 in my system and feed it fresh tires or use 255s under the old rule and adopt to the quirks, as Nathan and Rory did), the new rule only raises the cost of winning, which I thought was the province of SUR.

 

Under my rules, a car with a TTA base class could use the finicky 255 (everyone discounts this, b/c of course, it is all about the tire (at this moment, before it was about the car)), but the base class TTA 255 (or 245) user wouldn't get bonus points to use towards other mods.

 

I don't think Greg feels that 390hp cars should be running weenie tires, but the tire rulings are pushing towards smaller, not bigger, in order to clawback mod points. The tire rule is peculiar in this manner. So why not examine that while we are tinkering with peculiarities?

 

Why the need for a ruling anyway? TTA was very tight. B has historically been a crapshoot (again, C would have placed 3rd, and C has beaten B in the past) and if I did it again, it would be on 245s with sways (no more dirt modified), a real clutch, a healthy (+30hp) engine, better weight distribution (i.e. not a street car - ~75lbs more in back) and some faith in the scales after the initial bobble that I experienced (ie ~25lbs lighter).

 

But I agree with Scott, the squeaky wheel has been greased and this is all hot air. Hoosier wins either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Varkwso

The Hoosier program works for the club racer and Hoosier. Hoosier can put whatever they want on their tires as allowed by the current industry standard. They did not do anything wrong. Their job is to sell tires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drivinhardz06
Who is knocking Hoosier? I love Hoosier

 

Heck they are getting great press, a whole 100 page thread just on hoosier tires and how freakishly wide they are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jason
Slicks in the rain at Mid-O on the dry line.

That'll work everywhere but the keyhole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kbrew8991

the cost to compete within a ruleset is largely driven by its popularity - the more people you have trying to win, the more you have the chance to get someone who is willing and able to spend their way to any advantage they can find.

 

See also: Spec Miata and similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drivinhardz06
the cost to compete within a ruleset is largely driven by its popularity - the more people you have trying to win, the more you have the chance to get someone who is willing and able to spend their way to any advantage they can find.

 

See also: Spec Miata and similar.

 

stock car: x lap time

first $2500: -5 secs/lap

2nd $2500 : -2.5 secs/lap

3rd $3500: -1 sec/lap

4th $5000: - .3 sec/lap

5th $5000: - .1 sec/lap

6th $5000 - no change in lap time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cobra4B
the cost to compete within a ruleset is largely driven by its popularity - the more people you have trying to win, the more you have the chance to get someone who is willing and able to spend their way to any advantage they can find.

 

See also: Spec Miata and similar.

 

stock car: x lap time

first $2500: -5 secs/lap

2nd $2500 : -2.5 secs/lap

3rd $3500: -1 sec/lap

4th $5000: - .3 sec/lap

5th $5000: - .1 sec/lap

6th $5000 - no change in lap time

And that folks is a good illustration of the concept of diminishing marginal returns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drivinhardz06

It's $10 million a tenth in F1, what are ya'll whining about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Varkwso
the cost to compete within a ruleset is largely driven by its popularity - the more people you have trying to win, the more you have the chance to get someone who is willing and able to spend their way to any advantage they can find.

 

See also: Spec Miata and similar.

 

stock car: x lap time

first $2500: -5 secs/lap

2nd $2500 : -2.5 secs/lap

3rd $3500: -1 sec/lap

4th $5000: - .3 sec/lap

5th $5000: - .1 sec/lap

6th $5000 - no change in lap time

And that folks is a good illustration of the concept of diminishing marginal returns

 

Sadly accurate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vettedoctor
No one here is going to change the ruling on this tire so if it affects you, deal with it and move on.

You guys keep talking crap about Hoosier and we just may lose their amazingly generous contingency program.

Hoosier is one of the very few manufacturers that support grassroots racers - and they have for years. Let's not F it up.

I say lock this thread and delete it entirely.

 

I'm not talking crap about Hoosier, but I do think that NASA should look at this tire sizing issue as a whole, not just one mislabled tire. There are other tires out there that are "plus-sized" and we should probably try to figure out a way to fix the issue once and for all instead of re-classing on a case by case basis.

I definatly don't think the ruling will get changed but I think we can improve the ruling so that it doesn't happen again. I think it would suck if someone who was effected by this rule change would spend a bunch of time and $$$ figuring out a way to run 245's just to have that re-classed or to have the points system changed - like Ben is suggesting.

I'd like to help in any way to figure out a rule that will make the racing as fair and consistant as possible for years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jason
I'd like to help in any way to figure out a rule that will make the racing as fair and consistant as possible for years to come.

That's what we had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...